TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 2

1 Installation of Carbon Monoxide Detectors

2 F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project

3 Vending on Major Arterial Roads(Former Metro Roads).

4 Request for Extension of Deadline for Three-Day Roving Charity Casinos

5 Contract No. T-27-98:Don Mills Road Bridge Over CN Rail and Don River South of Overlea Boulevard--Structure Rehabilitation.

6 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Sheppard Avenue East and Gateforth Drive.

7 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: McCowan Road at Kenhatch Boulevard

8 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Wilson Avenue and Ridge Road.

9 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Kipling Avenue and Genthorn Avenue/St. Benedict's Catholic School Driveway.

10 Proposed Eastbound Right-Turn Lane Designation: Lake Shore Boulevard West at Palace Pier Court

11 Proposed Northbound Right-Turn Lane Designation: Leslie Street at Old Leslie Street/North York General Hospital Access.

12 Proposed Introduction of Traffic Regulations:2015 Lawrence Avenue West.

13 Appointments to Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo

14 Improving Speed Limit Compliance on Major Arterial Roads--Status Report.

15 Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on February 9, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

1

Installation of Carbon Monoxide Detectors.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the joint report dated February 16, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead (Building) and the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that the Province of Ontario be requested to enact legislation, under the Ontario Building Code Act to regulate minimum health and life safety matters in existing buildings.';

(b) the report dated February 25, 1998, from the City Solicitor, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted, subject to amending the effective date in Bill No. 57 from June 1, 1998, to November 1, 1998:

'It is recommended that authority be granted for the introduction of a bill in Council substantially in the form of the draft by-law attached.';

(c) the joint report dated February 25, 1998, from the Chief Administrative Officer, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the draft "Communications Plan: Carbon Monoxide Detector Public Awareness Campaign", attached as Appendix A to this report, be approved in principle;

(2) the cost for phase one of the Communications Plan in the amount of $6,000.00 be reduced, if possible, through corporate sponsorship, with the balance to be provided for in the Urban Environment and Development 1998 Operating Budget;

(3) the cost for phase two of the Communications Plan in the amount of $95,000.00, be supported through corporate sponsorship where possible;

(4) the Fire Services, in consultation with Corporate Communications, determine which items included in phase two of the Communications Plan and not supported through sponsorships can be accommodated within its 1998 Operating Budget;

(5) the information respecting "needy" recipients and the number of such households be received for information;

(6) the appropriate City of Toronto officials review the feasibility of purchasing carbon monoxide detectors in bulk, to offer for sale to all residents of the City of Toronto, with potential for a low monthly payment plan; and

(7) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.';

(d) the City Solicitor be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on whether or not the City can be held liable for selling the carbon monoxide detectors; and

(e) the following motion be referred to the Office of the Mayor for report thereon to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on Thursday, April 16, 1998, through the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is further recommended that the City bulk purchase a minimum of 15,000 carbon monoxide detectors by competitive tender to be sold to the public on a cost-recovery basis through:

(1) Environment Days;

(2) fire halls;

(3) libraries;

(4) community centres;

(5) ambulance stations; and

(6) other municipal facilities.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report (January 26, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Building;

(2) that enabling legislation be sought from the Province of Ontario which would permit the City of Toronto to enact by-laws requiring the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in residential occupancies within Toronto;

(3) that the draft by-law, which is being developed by the City Solicitor for consideration by Council, should be enacted by Council prior to receipt of the enabling legislation from the Province;

(4) that the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Interim Functional Lead for Building be requested to contact the Ontario Buildings Branch of the Ministry of Housing to stress the importance of dealing with this issue expeditiously;

(5) that all fuel supply companies:

(a) be contacted to determine how they can be of assistance in ensuring that carbon monoxide detectors are in place; and

(b) including Consumers' Gas, be requested to provide carbon monoxide detectors to each of their customers;

(6) that the Province of Ontario be requested to review product standards to determine the advisability of providing carbon monoxide detectors as a feature of "combustion equipment".

(7) that notice be provided to all building permit applicants of the dangers associated with carbon monoxide leaks; and

(8) that all City staff who meet people in their homes be enlisted in the program to educate people with respect to carbon monoxide detectors during the course of their visits.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(a) requested the City Solicitor to prepare a draft by-law requiring the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all residential occupancies in the City of Toronto, and to submit such draft by-law, together with an explanatory report thereon, directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998;

(b) requested the Interim Functional Lead for Building and the Fire Chief, in consultation with the Mayor of Toronto, to explore the potential for providing carbon monoxide detectors at reduced costs to residential occupancies in the City of Toronto; and, further, requested the Interim Functional Lead for Purchasing to explore the feasibility of purchasing carbon monoxide detectors in bulk, to be sold at cost to the public through City facilities, e.g., fire halls, libraries, community centres, ambulance stations, environment days and all municipal facilities; and to submit a report(s) thereon directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998;

(c) that the Interim Functional Lead for Building be requested to submit a report directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998, on the value of requesting the Province of Ontario to enact a Building Code for existing structures; and

(d) that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to submit a report directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998, regarding the potential cost for the proposed public information campaign, the criteria for determining "needy" recipients, and the anticipated number of such households.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (January 26, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Building:

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Provincial Government be requested to amend the Ontario Building Code to require installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all residential occupancies where there are gas or solid fuel-burning appliances;

(2) in conjunction with the Toronto Fire Department, the Ontario Fire Marshall be requested to co-ordinate a public information campaign about carbon monoxide; and

(3) information be placed on the City of Toronto's Internet site including links to other relevant sites.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Ontario Building Code requires installation of carbon monoxide (CO) detectors in all new houses where there is a wood-burning appliance such as a fireplace or wood stove. However, this provision has been in place for approximately four years and, since the Code is not retroactive, it does not apply to houses built prior to 1994.

Carbon monoxide detectors are required to be:

(1) installed near the ceiling of each room in which there is a solid fuel-burning appliance;

(2) equipped with an alarm that is audible within bedrooms, when the intervening doors are closed;

(3) permanently connected to an electrical circuit without any disconnect switch; and

(4) conforming to standards referenced in the Code.

As part of the national energy conservation program, air leakage into houses is being reduced by improved construction techniques and by the caulking and sealing of existing houses. There is additional concern that increased airtightness may also increase CO-related problems.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas, which is odourless, colourless and tasteless. It is produced by incomplete combustion of organic materials. Incomplete combustion may be due to malfunctioning appliances or simply when there is insufficient oxygen for complete combustion. In other words, when areas are not adequately vented. In an industrialized world, it is generally impossible to avoid some exposure to CO.

Most sources of combustion are not 100 percent efficient. During normal combustion, carbon joins with oxygen to form a harmless gas called carbon dioxide. However, when there is a lack of oxygen to ensure complete combustion of the burning fuel, only one atom of oxygen links up with carbon, forming carbon monoxide gas.

The following is a list of potential sources where CO may be produced and reach dangerous levels if appropriate steps are not taken:

Sources of Carbon Monoxide

Carbon monoxide is the leading cause of accidental poisoning deaths in North America. In the United States, the Consumer Safety Commission puts the number of CO home fatalities at an average of 290 per year. Public Health authorities report that every year, a total of 1,500 persons die from accidental exposure to high concentrations of CO. In response to this problem, a number of cities, including Chicago, Albany and St. Louis, have passed mandatory CO detector legislation and have embarked on an extensive public education campaign. The last week in September, 1998, has been declared by President Clinton to be "Carbon Monoxide Safety Awareness Week".

How Does CO Affect the Human Body?

CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood. When it is inhaled, the toxic gas enters the bloodstream and attaches itself to the oxygen-carrying pigment (haemoglobin) in the red blood cells, forming a toxic compound called carboxyhemoglobin (COHb).

Exposure periods to CO and the amount of COHb are the two critical factors which determine the severity of what happens next. CO is not easily removed from the body by our natural defences and can reach lethal concentrations in a very short period of time. Low COHb levels (10 percent) result in symptoms commonly mistaken for the flu or the common cold. At medium levels (30 percent) the symptoms become more severe: dizziness, mental confusion, severe headaches and nausea. At high levels (50 percent) there may be unconsciousness or death.

Conclusions:

This report is an outline of initiatives that can be taken by the City of Toronto to deal with carbon monoxide related problems. Appropriate regulatory changes and a well-defined and executed public education initiative can be quite effective in preventing accidental deaths due to CO poisoning.

I have discussed this issue with the Fire Chief, Al Speed. He is very supportive of the initiative, especially with the public education component. He has indicated that in conjunction with the Ontario Fire Marshall's office, a CO detector campaign may be launched which may also include the sale and distribution of free detectors to the needy.

Contact Name:

Mr. Yaman Uzumeri, Interim Functional Lead, Building, 395-7513.

________

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, President, Environmental Probe Ltd.:

(i) (January 13, 1998) recommending that a new by-law be introduced to require that all buildings (especially residential buildings) which use fossil fuels be equipped with approved carbon monoxide detectors; advising that this by-law would be similar to the requirements for smoke detectors; and that the standard CO detector costs about $35.00 and can mean the difference between life and death for any unfortunate person or family caught in a building where this odourless and silent killer has escaped from a combustion system; and

(ii) (February 7, 1998) expressing agreement with the recommendations embodied in the report dated January 26, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Building; and providing additional suggestions with respect to carbon monoxide detectors.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto;

- Councillor John Adams, Toronto Midtown; and

- Councillor Brian Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 25, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council support a public awareness communications plan respecting the danger of carbon monoxide poisoning and the benefits of carbon monoxide detectors in saving lives. Further, the report discusses criteria for determining "needy" recipients of carbon monoxide detectors, potential number of such households, and various programs for reaching such households.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The communications plan described in this report requires funding of approximately $101,000.00, which will be included in the Fire Services 1998 Operating Budget submission. It is likely that this cost will be reduced through various sponsorships as recommended below.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the draft "Communications Plan: Carbon Monoxide Detector Public Awareness Campaign" attached as Appendix A to this report be approved in principle;

(2) the cost for phase one of the Communications Plan in the amount of $6,000.00 be reduced, if possible, through corporate sponsorship, with the balance to be provided for in the Urban Environment and Development 1998 Operating Budget;

(3) the cost for phase two of the Communications Plan in the amount of $95,000.00 be supported through corporate sponsorship where possible;

(4) the Fire Services, in consultation with Corporate Communications determine which items included in phase two of the Communications Plan and not supported through sponsorships can be accommodated within its 1998 Operating Budget;

(5) the information respecting "needy" recipients and the number of such households be received for information;

(6) the appropriate City of Toronto officials review the feasibility of purchasing carbon monoxide detectors in bulk, to offer for sale to all residents of the City of Toronto, with potential for a low monthly payment plan; and

(7) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on February 9, 1998, considered the report, entitled "Installation of Carbon Monoxide Detectors", and recommended, in part, "that the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) be requested to submit a report directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998, regarding the potential cost for the proposed public information campaign, the criteria for determining "needy" recipients, and the anticipated number of such households".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Carbon Monoxide Detector Public Awareness Campaign:

Staff of the CAO's office met with representatives of Corporate Communications, Building Services, Fire Services and the Ontario Fire Marshall's office, to discuss the opportunities and costs associated with a public information campaign respecting carbon monoxide detectors. As a result of the discussion, Corporate Communications staff developed the draft "Communication Plan: Carbon Monoxide Detector Public Awareness Campaign" herein attached as Appendix A.

In an effort to reach as many residents as possible, the communication plan is a tiered approach using a range of communication media including various print advertising, press releases, the internet, fire prevention events, displays and presentations, and potentially radio and public service announcements. The objective of the communication plan is to educate City of Toronto residents on the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning, potential sources of the deadly gas, and prevention including maintenance of all gas and solid fuel burning appliances and the installation of carbon monoxide detectors. The proposal is a community-based approach to reach as many residents as possible using local distribution methods such as newspapers, schools, libraries, and shopping malls.

The communication plan proposes to proceed quickly with the first phase involving an update to the Internet and production of an information flyer that can be implemented at minimal cost and is provided for within the budget of Building Services. The completion of this phase by early April will allow distribution of the flyer in conjunction with Building Safety Week. The balance of the communication plan is to be implemented in the early fall in conjunction with Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week in September and Fire Prevention Week in early October. This timing also recognizes that the majority of carbon monoxide poisoning cases occurs through the fall and winter season when heating appliances are used. It is also suggested that this public education initiative occur on an annual basis and includes information respecting carbon monoxide dangers in disaster situations such as the recent ice storm in Eastern Ontario and Quebec.

The estimated cost of the communication plan is $101,000.00 and is provided in more detail in Appendix A. Staff of Fire and Building Services advises that through their respective experiences, there is corporate interest in sponsoring such public safety programs. Therefore, the cost of this communication initiative can likely be reduced through various sponsorship efforts.

It is therefore recommended that the "Communications Plan: Carbon Monoxide Detector Public Awareness Campaign" attached as Appendix A to this report be approved in principle. It is further recommended that the cost for phase one of the Communications Plan in the amount of $6,000.00 be provided for in the Building Services 1998 Operating Budget. Also, it is recommended that the cost for phase two of the Communications Plan in the amount of $95,000.00 be supported through corporate sponsorship where possible, and Fire Services determine which items included in phase two of the Communications Plan and not supported through sponsorships can be accommodated within its 1998 Operating Budget.

Criteria for Determining "Needy" Recipients of Carbon Monoxide Detectors:

The two key elements in determining those "needy" recipients of carbon monoxide detectors are financial need and living environment. While statistics are available that indicate the number of low income families, number of low income individuals, and the number of various household types within the City of Toronto, the data cannot be cross-referenced to determine the number of individuals in financial need living in an environment potentially subject to carbon monoxide poisoning.

Community and Neighbourhood Services staff discussed a number of methods to determine financial need such as individuals receiving welfare, daycare or other subsidy programs. They concluded, however, that the best indication of the number of individuals in financial need is the Low-Income Cut-Off (LICOs) method used by Statistics Canada that measures the proportion of household income devoted to the essentials of food, clothing and shelter. Community and Neighbourhood Services staff compiled information based on the 1991 census conducted by Statistics Canada. More recent figures based on the 1996 census will be released in the near future. Staff advised that the measure of poverty has not dramatically changed and the 1991 statistics are still fairly reliable.

Based on this approach, the number of low-income families in the City of Toronto is 95,980. This figure does not account for single residents or individuals cohabiting in non-family circumstances and staff advised that a combined measure of low-income households is not available. The number of persons in low-income family units is 426,925. A very rough extrapolation of the data based on an average of 2.59 persons per household, as indicated in the 1991 census data from Statistics Canada, results in an estimated 274,317 household units in financial need within the City of Toronto.

With respect to living environment, the 1991 census data indicates a total of 864,555 private housing units, including 420,635 apartment units, within the City of Toronto. Although this data is not cross-referenced with heating type and there is no practical method to determine residences where there are gas or solid fuel burning appliances, it is likely that a significant number of apartment buildings and a limited number of attached, detached, row housing and other type units do not rely on such appliances. Therefore, with the exception of individuals using elements such as charcoal grilles within their dwellings, danger of carbon monoxide poisoning would not exist for some proportion of dwelling units. It is recommended that the information respecting "needy" recipients and the number of such households be received for information.

Recognizing the cost of detectors of approximately $35.00 to $45.00, those in financial need would not be able to afford to purchase a carbon monoxide detector. Staff advise that although it is possible to estimate numbers of "needy" recipients based on individual criteria, it is difficult to manage a program to reach those in need. As indicated above, it would be necessary to assess the financial need and living environment of potentially 274,317 people. Community and Neighbourhood Services staff support a bulk order purchase that would make detectors available to the public at a reduced cost with the potential for low monthly payments, as the most effective approach to providing carbon monoxide detectors to as many residents as possible. It is therefore recommended that the appropriate City of Toronto officials review the feasibility of purchasing carbon monoxide detectors in bulk, to offer for sale to all residents of the City of Toronto, with potential for a low monthly payment plan.

Fire Department Programs:

The Fire Department manages a number of programs to inform the public respecting carbon monoxide poisoning and to encourage the installation of detectors in homes. Work is ongoing with the Ontario Fire Marshall's Public Safety Council, other fire safety and prevention organizations, corporations and suppliers of carbon monoxide detectors to communicate with the public. For example, the Fire Department is associated with the Alarm for Life Program that results in the sale of carbon monoxide detectors to employees by corporations such as banks and credit unions. The Fire Department also recently implemented the Older and Wiser Program that will provide carbon monoxide detectors and smoke alarms free of charge to 500 senior residents that are isolated, financially needy and living in a single family dwelling. The Fire Department acquired the detectors at a reduced cost and is working with local senior agencies such as Meals on Wheels and the Victorian Order of Nurses to compile a list of those most in need.

Conclusions:

The Information and Communications Division, in consultation with Fire and Building Services have developed a draft communications plan to inform the public on awareness and prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning. The campaign is community based and intended to reach as many residents as possible in the City of Toronto. The cost of the program can potentially be reduced through various sponsorships.

Criteria for determining "needy" recipients include financial need and living environment. Individual statistics are available for these criteria although there is no practical means to cross reference information and determine the number of individuals in financial need living in an environment susceptible to carbon monoxide poisoning. Further, Community and Neighbourhood Services staff advise that the administration involved and burden of workload to administer a subsidized carbon monoxide detector program would be costly as each individual would need to be assessed with respect to financial need and living environment.

The most effective approach to inform the public respecting carbon monoxide poisoning and encourage the use of detectors is to continue programs such as those currently managed by the Fire Department. In addition, the public information strategy described in the draft communications plan should be implemented to reach as many residents as possible. With respect to reaching "needy" recipients, the purchase of carbon monoxide detectors in bulk and offer for sale to all residents of the City of Toronto, with a potential monthly payment plan, would make carbon monoxide detectors affordable and encourage installation of the units by those who need them.

Contact Names:

Katherine Borron, CAO's Office, 392-4318;

Deputy Chief Terry Boyko, Fire Services, 397-4302;

T-Jay Upper, Corporate Communications, 392-0470; and

Yaman Uzumeri, Buildings, 395-7513.

(Appendix A)

Draft Communication Plan: Carbon Monoxide Detector

Public Awareness Campaign

BACKGROUND:

Since 1994, the Ontario Building Code has required that carbon monoxide detectors be installed in all new houses where there is a solid fuel burning appliance such as a fireplace or a wood burning stove. The provision is not retroactive, and does not apply to houses built prior to 1994.

Carbon monoxide is the leading cause of accidental poisoning deaths in North America. Following two recent deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning in Toronto's Scarborough Bluffs ward, the Functional Lead for Building was requested to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and recommend a strategy for dealing with carbon monoxide problems. That report, dated January 26, 1998, concluded that there are a number of initiatives that the City of Toronto, in cooperation with the Ontario Fire Marshall's Office, could undertake to address the carbon monoxide poisoning issue. In addition to the enactment of the appropriate regulatory changes, the initiation of a well-defined public education campaign was recommended.

In this regard, the following communication plan outlines a communication strategy on carbon monoxide poisoning awareness.

GOAL (what the public awareness campaign intends to accomplish):

To create a high level of awareness among Toronto residents about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning in their homes.

OBJECTIVES (how we intend to reach our goal):

(1) Encourage residents to purchase and install a carbon monoxide detector in their homes; and

(2) advise residents of steps they can take to protect themselves from carbon monoxide poisoning.

TARGET AUDIENCES (Who are we aiming the communication messages to?):

(1) All residents of Toronto; and

(2) Media

KEY MESSAGES (What are we trying to say?):

(1) Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colourless, odourless, deadly gas. It is a common by-product of appliances that run on flammable fuel. Gas or oil furnaces, wood stoves, space heaters, and water heaters are some common appliances that can emit carbon monoxide.

(2) Recently-built, more energy-efficient airtight home designs contribute to a risk of CO poisoning by trapping CO-polluted air inside the home.

(3) You can take steps to protect yourself and your family from CO poisoning.

(4) The City of Toronto, through its Fire, Building and Health Services, together with the Ontario Fire Marshall's Office, encourage you to install a plug-in model carbon monoxide detector in your home.

COMMUNICATION ELEMENTS (How are we going to do it?):

In order to best respond to the need for timely public information about CO poisoning, we suggest that the campaign consist of two phases.

The first phase would be implemented immediately; the second phase would begin in the early fall at the beginning of the heating season. Depending on available budget, phase two is presented using two options: a basic campaign and an enhanced campaign.

We recommend that consideration be given to establishing a CO awareness campaign as a regular program of Toronto's outreach to residents through its Fire Services office -- in much the same way that smoke alarm awareness is featured annually during Fire Prevention Week in early October.

There may be opportunities for corporate sponsorship with other levels of government such as the Ontario Fire Marshall's Office and private corporations such as Consumers' Gas, First Alert and American Sensors.

Phase One

(1) Flyer:

For the immediate short-term, prior to the launch of the campaign at the start of Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week, we recommend that a simple flyer be produced that can quickly go to Toronto residents via City inspection staff in the fire, building, and health service areas.

- a one-colour, 8 1/2" x 11" brochure that folds down to three panels (to fit standard-sized slots in brochure racks);

- English brochure, but with blurbs in eight languages referring reader to assistance in their language on the topic of CO poisoning (referral to City's Access Toronto service who connect with ATT language line); and

- to be displayed and distributed at libraries, community recreation centres, government offices, and schools.

(2) Internet:

For the immediate short-term, we recommend posting the information contained in the first brochure on the Internet, with linkages to other sources of information (as identified by the Building Services office).

As the other communication elements are developed and implemented, the information on the Internet can be expanded and amended to include the following:

- 2nd brochure, media releases, backgrounder sheets; and

- explore possibility of e-mail to respond to public inquiries.

Phase Two -- Level One

(1) Media Relations:

(1.1) Strategy:

- To encourage media coverage of the dangers of CO poisoning and the steps people can take to protect themselves from it through:

- media releases;

- pre-written opinion editorial or feature article for newspaper use;

- pitch letter to selected editors ( health, lifestyle, home-improvement);

- public service announcements (PSAs) for radio and cable television; and

- media launch of Toronto's public awareness campaign at start of Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week (with spillover into Fire Prevention Week).

(2) Proclamation:

- read by the Mayor at the launch event; and

- displayed at the seven civic service centres.

(3) Transit Shelter Poster:

4-colour; approximate size = 4' x 6'

- reaches pedestrians, transit users, drivers, cyclists;

- provides high-on-the street exposure;

- helps create broad public awareness; and

- available at relatively low cost as posting space is free under Mediacom agreement with the City of Toronto.

(4) Poster:

- Use same design as transit shelter poster; approximate size = 18" x 25"'

- for display at public spaces in Toronto, such as schools, libraries, community recreation centres, government offices; and

- distribution (individually and in bulk) should be through internal government delivery and inter-office mail to eliminate relatively high postage costs.

(5) Brochure:

The Ontario Fire Marshall's Office does not currently have a brochure that addresses carbon monoxide poisoning. The Fire Marshall's Office has indicated an interest in underwriting the cost of the production of a CO brochure which would be used not only in Toronto's public awareness campaign, but be available to fire services across Ontario.

Discussions with the Fire Marshall's Office on this matter are still at the preliminary stage with respect to funding. For the purpose of this draft strategy, we have assumed a Toronto-only distribution of the brochure, using Toronto budget (please refer to "Budget" section, page 8 for cost details).

- a 4-colour, 8 1/2" x 14" brochure that folds down to 4 panels to fit in brochure racks and No. 10 envelopes;

- visually ties in with the transit shelter poster and smaller poster;

- available in English and at least eight other languages; and

- to be displayed and distributed at libraries, community recreation centres, government offices, and schools.

(6) Hydro Bill Insert:

- 8 1/2" x 6" folded insert;

- basic information taken from brochure; and

- mailed out with hydro bills to all Toronto households in early autumn.

The use of the hydro bills as a distribution vehicle is subject to space availability.

(7) Newspaper Advertising:

Community and non-English papers tend to have a longer "stay" in readers' homes than the daily English-language papers. For this campaign, we recommend supplementing one insertion in the daily English papers, with a series of insertions in selected English-language community newspapers (weeklies and monthlies) and other-language newspapers serving non-English-speaking communities (dailies and weeklies).

- small ads, 4" x 5", include a phone number and/or an e-mail address which people can contact to get more information, such as the brochure; and

- visually tie-in with the transit poster/brochure.

(8) Portable Display:

- effective means of introducing the subject in a simple, large format;

- can be set up in libraries, community recreation centres, public spaces, government offices, schools, shopping malls for one week (or one weekend) at a time;

- can be used as a distribution point for supporting brochures; and

- can be staffed to facilitate direct exchange of information with the public.

Phase Two -- Level Two

(Incorporates all of the elements of Phase One -- Level One, plus the following)

(9) Display video:

- 5-minute video tape;

- presents information in brochure in a visual manner;

- used in VCR in portable display;

- can also be used by City staff for public presentations; and

- English-only with possibility of voice-over in other languages.

(10) Radio Advertising:

- public awareness message;

- targeted to commuter traffic during morning and afternoon rush hours on mainstream English radio;

- translated version of message on eight non-English programs; and

- two-week run to coordinate with start of Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week.

TIME LINE

Assuming approval of communication plan by March 4, 1998:

(1) post CO information on City's website;

(2) determine if e-mail possible for correspondence with public;

(3) initiate artwork for flyer; and

(4) discussion with Ontario Fire Marshall's Office and appropriate corporate sponsors re funding possibilities.

April 10

Flyer ready for distribution.

April to July

Work progresses and approvals secured for production of:

- poster/transit poster;

- brochure;

- hydro bill insert;

- video; and

- radio message.

August

- Transit shelter posters delivered to Mediacom; and

- media materials are developed.

September

- Transit shelter posters are posted;

- media relations strategy is implemented;

- media launch takes place just prior to start of Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week (exact date to be advised);

- print materials are distributed; and

- radio advertising runs.

BUDGET

Phase One:

(1) Flyer 75,000 copies $6,000.00

(2) Internet No cost

Total Phase One $6,000.00

Phase Two:

Level One:

(1) Media Relations (photocopying, postage, equipment rental): $1,500.00

(2) Proclamation:

- writing No cost

- production of oversized display proclamations $1,000.00

(3) Transit shelter poster: $11,000.00

- printing $7,000.00

- 150 posting spaces in former Etobicoke/North York/

Scarborough/Toronto/York No cost

- posting five spaces in former East York at approximately

$800/space (assumes 4-week posting) $4,000.00

(4) Poster - 2,000 copies $2,500.00

(5) Brochure - 100,000 copies $20,000.00

(6) Hydro bill insert $10,000.00

(7) Newspaper advertising - English daily/community/select non-English $12,000.00

(8) Portable display:

- display panels

- assumes use of existing display system $3,000.00

Total Phase Two -- Level One $61,000.00

Phase Two -- Level Two

Total Level One Budget: $61,000.00

Plus:

(9) Display video:

- assumes use of in-house production facilities

- professional voice, scripting, copies $5,000.00

(10) Radio advertising:

- mainstream English/select non-English

- 2-week run, 60 30-second spots over 2-week period $35,000.00

Total Phase Two -- Level Two $101,000.00)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report responds to the Urban Environment and Development Committee's request that the City Solicitor prepare a draft by-law which would require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all residential occupancies, and submit the draft by-law together with an explanatory report directly to Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that authority be granted for the introduction of a bill in Council substantially in the form of the draft by-law attached.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on February 9, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee considered a report on problems associated with carbon monoxide in residential units and

"requested the City Solicitor to prepare a draft by-law requiring the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all residential occupancies in the City of Toronto, and to submit such draft by-law, together with an explanatory report thereon, directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998."

In addition, the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended to Council that the report of the Interim Functional Lead for Building (January 26, 1998) be adopted, which recommended that:

"(1) Provincial Government be requested to amend the Ontario Building Code to require installation of Carbon Monoxide detectors in ALL residential occupancies where there are gas or solid fuel burning appliances;

(2) In conjunction with the Toronto Fire Department, request Ontario Fire Marshall to co-ordinate a public information campaign about Carbon Monoxide; and

(3) Information be placed in Toronto's Internet site including links to other relevant sites."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Ontario Building Code only requires the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in limited circumstances (where there is a wood burning stove or fireplace) and applies only to buildings being constructed.

The draft by-law attached would require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all dwelling units, defined to include single family dwellings and other dwelling types such as apartment units, which have, within the unit, an appliance fueled by flammable materials such as natural gas, propane and solid fuels like wood. It would also require carbon monoxide detectors to be provided where the dwelling unit is in close proximity (within two floors) of a producer of carbon monoxide (such as a gas fired boiler in an apartment building).

It is not open to City Council to pass a by-law requiring carbon monoxide detectors in dwelling units that are being constructed. Subsection 35(1) of the Building Code Act provides that such a by-law would be superseded:

"35(1) This Act and the building code supersede all municipal by-laws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings."

However, it appears to be open to pass such a by-law for all existing dwelling units under the authority contained in the property standards provisions of the Planning Act. Section 31(3) of the Planning Act provides that where an Official Plan that includes provisions relating to property conditions is in effect in a local municipality, the council of the municipality may pass a by-law,

"for prescribing standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property within the municipality or within any defined area or areas and for prohibiting the occupancy or use of such property that does not conform with the standards;..."

The courts have held that such standards may lawfully require upgrading from standards in effect when a building was constructed.

If enacted, the by-law would inform its residents that the matter of installing carbon monoxide detectors is considered an important enough safety issue to warrant the passage of a by-law. The normal measures for enforcing a property standards by-laws would apply.

The Building Department has been consulted in the recommendations of this report and the form of the by-law attached hereto.

Conclusions:

A draft by-law is attached for Council's consideration. It is prudent, however, to carry on with the suggested amendment to the Building Code so that the standards which apply to buildings when fully constructed and occupied will be the same as those which apply to buildings being constructed.

Contact Names:

George M. Dixon, City Solicitor, North York. 395-7055, George@city.north-york.on.ca;

Catherine M. Conrad, Senior Solicitor, 395-7061, Catherine@city.north-york.on.ca.

(Draft By-law)

Authority:

Intended for first presentation to Council: March 4, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BILL NO.

BY-LAW

A by-law to prescribe maintenance and occupancy standards for

dwelling units with respect to carbon monoxide detectors.

WHEREAS Council has authority under Section 31 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. Definitions

a) "Boarding or Lodging House" means a dwelling in which lodging with or without meals is supplied for gain, but shall not include a hotel, hospital, children's home, nursing home, home for the aged or other similar establishment.

b) "Carbon Monoxide Detector" means a combined carbon monoxide detector and audible alarm device that:

i) is designed to sound an audible alarm upon detection of excessive concentrations of carbon monoxide, and

ii) conforms to the Underwriters' Laboratories Standard 2034 and, where electrically powered, is approved by the Canadian Standards Association.

(c) "Dwelling Unit" means a building or part of a building, comprised of a room, series of rooms or suite operated under a single tenancy as a housekeeping unit, or intended to be used as a domicile by one or more persons and which may contain cooking, eating, living, sleeping and sanitary facilities, and including its respective appurtenant hallways.

(d) "Fire Prevention Inspector" means a member of the Fire Prevention Division of the Fire Department of the City of Toronto, and includes the Fire Chief and any other member of the Fire Department designated by the Fire Chief;

(e) "Fuel burning appliances" means appliances such as, but not limited to furnaces, refrigerators, clothes dryers, water heaters, boilers, fireplaces, wood stoves, charcoal grills, gas ranges and space heaters, which are fired by flammable fuels such as, but not limited to natural gas, propane, heating oil, kerosene, coal, gasoline, wood and charcoal.

(f) "Occupant" means any person or persons over the age of 18 years, or any firm or corporation, in possession of any dwelling unit.

(g) "Owner" includes the person for the time being managing or receiving the rent of the land or premises in connection with which the word is used whether on the person's own account or as agent or trustee of any other person or who would so receive the rent if such land and premises were let, and shall also include a lessee or occupant of the property who, under the terms of a lease, is required to repair and maintain the property in accordance with the standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property;

2. For the purposes of this by-law, a Boarding or Lodging House shall be considered to be one dwelling unit.

3. Every owner of a dwelling unit shall repair and maintain the dwelling unit to conform with the standards for carbon monoxide detectors set out in this by-law.

4. A minimum of one (1) carbon monoxide detector shall be installed in each of the following dwelling units, in accordance with the provisions of this by-law:

a) each dwelling unit containing a fuel burning appliance;

b) for a building containing multiple occupancies, each dwelling unit located on the same floor level as a fuel burning appliance; and

c) for a building containing multiple occupancies, each dwelling unit located on the first and second floor levels of the building above a floor level containing a fuel burning appliance.

5. Every occupant of a dwelling unit shall ensure that each carbon monoxide detector installed in accordance with this by-law is maintained in good operating condition and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.

6. Carbon monoxide detectors shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions and shall be equipped with an alarm that is audible within bedrooms when the intervening doors are closed.

7. Each electrically powered carbon monoxide detector shall:

a) be equipped with visual indications that it is in operating condition; and

b) have NO switch between the carbon monoxide detector and the power distribution panel.

8. The Fire Chief and Fire Prevention Inspectors acting under the Fire Chief's instructions are hereby appointed property standards officers for the purposes of administering and enforcing the provisions of this by-law.

9. This By-law shall come into force on June 1, 1998.

10. The short title of this By-law is "The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law".

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , 1998.

________________________ ______________________ Mayor City Clerk)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 25, 1998) from the Fire Chief:

Purpose:

To promote the installation of carbon monoxide detectors to the public as life safety devices.

Source of Funds:

Funding from Fire Department Budget.

Recommendation:

Council receive for information.

History:

Communication of January 23, 1998 from Councillor Brian Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs, regarding carbon monoxide detectors.

Comments:

Carbon monoxide has become the leading cause of household poisoning. As a result, the Fire Department has profiled the installation of carbon monoxide detectors as one of its priorities for 1998 safety programs. We are presently working on a number of initiatives:

(1) Older and Wiser Program:

On February 2, 1998, the Toronto Fire Department, Mayor Lastman and the Office of the Ontario Fire Marshal initiated a media kickoff for a program involving the installation of free carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detectors to vulnerable senior citizens in the City of Toronto. We were able to acquire 500 carbon monoxide detectors and 500 smoke alarms from American Sensor Inc., which will be distributed by firefighters free of charge. To ensure we are targeting the right people, we are working with organizations such as West Toronto Support Services, Parkdale Golden Age Club, York West Meals on Wheels.

(2) Get Alarmed Program:

In the spring of 1998, we will be dispatching 16 fire apparatus to different areas daily where staff will coordinate calls to each house in the area to supply information, answer questions on fire safety and re-enforce the importance of having smoke alarms, as well as, carbon monoxide detectors to protect their family. While the firefighters are involved with this program they will remain on call for any emergency calls they may be dispatched to.

As part of this program, the Fire Department will also sell smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors at their public education booth at the Cottage Show, the Home Show and various other shows at the Exhibition Place, Trade Centre and the Convention Centre. Any profits generated from the sales will go to the support of "The Arson Prevention for Children Program."

Conclusions:

The Fire Department is progressively seeking new initiatives for programs, as well as expanding on present ones. This will require finding new partners to assist with funding.

Contact Name:

Jack Collins, Director Fire Prevention.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 25, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise City Council of the feasibility of purchasing carbon monoxide detectors in bulk to be sold to the public.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable to this report.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting on February 9, 1998, considered a report and communications regarding the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all residential occupancies where there are gas or solid fuel burning appliances.

As part of its recommendation to Council, the Committee recommended that the Interim Functional Lead for Purchasing explore the feasibility of purchasing carbon monoxide detectors in bulk to be sold at cost to the public through City facilities, e.g., fire halls, libraries, community centres, ambulance stations, environment days and all municipal facilities; and to submit a report(s) thereon directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998.

Comments:

Purchasing has verified the availability of carbon monoxide detectors on a bulk basis with several manufacturers and distributors and has concluded that the purchase of carbon monoxide detectors in bulk can be accomplished utilizing the normal competitive bidding process.

Approximate bulk prices and retail prices (excluding taxes) for carbon monoxide detectors are as follows:

Type Bulk Price Retail Price

Plug-in Type $ 22.00 ea. $ 35.20 ea.

Direct Wired Type $ 28.95 ea. $ 46.32 ea.

Battery Type $ 30.95 ea. $ 49.52 ea.

Purchasing will work with appropriate City officials to determine quantities, delivery locations, specifications, packaging requirements and delivery schedules.

Conclusions:

The purchase of carbon monoxide detectors on a bulk basis can be accomplished using the normal competitive bidding process.

Contact Name:

Nick Kristoffy, Functional Lead for Purchasing, 392-7051.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (February 16, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Building and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To propose a regulatory framework to improve health and safety of occupants of existing buildings.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Province of Ontario be requested to enact legislation, under the Ontario Building Code Act to regulate minimum health and life safety matters in existing buildings.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting held on February 9, 1998 Item No. 4 when dealing with the matter of Carbon Monoxide detectors, passed the following resolution:

".... that the Interim Functional Lead for Building be requested to submit a report directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998, on the value of requesting the Province of Ontario to enact a Building Code for existing structures."

The Ontario Building Code regulates health and safety aspects in the design and construction of all new buildings in Ontario. Municipalities do not have the authority to vary the requirements contained in the Code. However, there is no complementary or parallel code dealing with existing buildings. At best, Ontario's regulatory system for existing buildings is complex and fragmented. Regulations are administered through municipalities and a number of Ministries such as, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Solicitor General, Consumer and Commercial Relations and others. The Fire Code deals with minimum standards requiring upgrading of certain types of buildings but not others. Currently, municipal property standards bylaws are enacted under the Planning Act. On April 1, 1998, this authority will be relocated into the Building Code Act. Elevating devices are regulated through the Elevating Devices Act.

Developing a code for existing buildings and consolidating all regulations into one document will bring clarity to an otherwise confusing set of regulations and by-laws. As it stands, administration and enforcement of these rules and procedures are costly, time consuming and often beyond the understanding of some property owners as well as some Provincial and Municipal officials.

I believe a uniform set of standards for existing buildings is also consistent with the Province's philosophy of a "one window" concept. In 1993, amendments were introduced to the Building Code Act for the development of a code for existing buildings. The general purpose of these amendments were "...to establish standards for public health and safety, fire protection, structural sufficiency, accessibility, conservation and environmental integrity with respect to existing buildings."

Subsection 34(2) of the Act reads as follows:

Standards for Existing Buildings: The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations to establish standards that existing buildings must meet even though no construction is proposed, including regulations,

(a) prescribing any or all of the matters set out in subsection (1) as applicable to existing buildings;

(b) establishing standards for maintenance, occupancy and repair; and

(c) prescribing standards related to resource conservation and environmental protection.

The Act further stipulates that "...the regulation made under this section applies to buildings whether erected before or after the coming into force of this Act."

Within the past few years, many organizations including Ontario Building Officials Association and Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials group have recognized and endorsed the importance of creating a code for existing buildings. The Council of the former Municipality of North York also adopted a concept at its meeting held on March 1, 1995 by the following resolution 95-03.

"...the Province of Ontario be requested to develop a building code for existing buildings."

To date no action has been taken.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As buildings age, the need for their maintenance increases. For the safety of occupants of buildings, it is necessary to insure that components of such buildings, either as separate entities or

as a system, continue to perform their intended function. There are many health and safety matters that could be improved in existing buildings. This does not necessarily mean to bring existing buildings to the level of the current building code. Such a code should recognize and reflect many physical, financial and legal limitations that may be applicable to existing buildings.

The Carbon Monoxide detector issue is an example of how the concern could have been dealt with under a code for existing buildings.

Conclusions:

This report is intended to suggest a regulatory framework to improve the health and safety of occupants of existing buildings. No intent has been made to deal with other aspects such as the specific contents of the code or its administration.

Many building components start to deteriorate soon after they are installed and put into use. Unless remedial measures are taken, the rate of deterioration increases with every passing year. Rusting, collection of dust, lack of maintenance sometimes creates dangerous or untenable conditions. Deterioration of underground garages due to corrosion of reinforcing bars, changes in the building regulations and availability of safety devices to provide safer environment for the occupiers of buildings are some of the reasons why establishment of health and safety related regulations for existing buildings makes sense.

This report has been discussed with Legal Department staff.

Contact Name:

Yaman Uzumeri, 395-7513.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 3, 1998) from Mr. N. Loberg, Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Consumers Gas, addressed to Councillor Joe Pantalone, submitting comments regarding the proposal to regulate carbon monoxide detectors.)

2

F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on Thursday, April 16, 1998, such Clause to be considered at 4:00 p.m. on the first day of the meeting.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the dismantling of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway continue as approved in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Study, with the modifications regarding public consultation as proposed in Recommendation No. (2) below;

(2) the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested:

(a) in consultation with the Councillors in each of the affected Wards (including those east of Victoria Park Avenue), to initiate local public education meetings in order to disseminate detailed information, and to ensure full public participation, on the impact of the dismantling of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway; such meetings to be held prior to the start of the construction stage of the dismantling project;

(b) to ensure that:

(i) at least two consultation meetings are held in each Ward under the direction of the local Councillors;

(ii) these consultations provide local residents with information about the justification for the demolition, the process of demolition and the impact of that process, the proposed plans for the final form of Lake Shore Boulevard East and access to the Gardiner Expressway, and the impact which that final form will have on the community, including noise, traffic patterns and safety;

(iii) the consultation provide an opportunity for public feedback on the design and implementation of the Gardiner Expressway demolition to optimally address community concerns;

(iv) the consultation include an opportunity for residents unable to attend public meetings to communicate in writing their concerns and ideas relating to the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway; and

(v) the East Beach Community Association and the Birchcliffe Community Association are invited to the public education meetings;

(3) the Interim Lead for Transportation be requested:

(a) to investigate possible methods of minimizing noise levels during the dismantling of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway;

(b) to develop a full strategy for preventing traffic infiltration in the corridor, including infiltration into neighbourhoods at the former Greenwood Race Track and the neighbourhoods in the vicinity of Kingston Road, the Beaches and South Riverdale;

(c) to prepare a precise and detailed schedule to demonstrate in what ways and for what period various portions of the project route would be affected, including rail traffic;

(d) to investigate the feasibility of easterly and westerly extensions of the bicycle trails on Lake Shore Boulevard; and

(e) to conduct a thorough traffic impact study on:

(i) the east-west delays that will occur;

(ii) the north-south delays that will occur;

(iii) the introduction of traffic to the north of Lake Shore Boulevard between the Don River and Carlaw Avenue; and

(iv) the impact of traffic delays caused by increased rail use on the spur lines;

and report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(4) the following motion be referred to the Interim Lead for Transportation with a request that he submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

'Moved by Councillor McConnell, on behalf of Councillor Bussin:

"(3) that consideration of a stop-light at the intersection of Logan Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard be abandoned, and that left-turn movements in all directions be prohibited at the aforementioned intersection."';

(5) the Interim Lead for Transportation be requested to review the two rail spurs which are not currently being utilized in order to determine whether the process for their abandonment can be commenced by the railway companies; and, further, that the City Solicitor be requested to investigate the City of Toronto's legal rights with respect to the closing of the aforementioned two rail spurs; and submit a joint report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(6) the City of Toronto make the creation of a plan dealing with the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor a priority and create a broad-based process to move the planning forward, including funding to undertake this work, subject to budgetary approval; and

(7) the Toronto Transit Commission be encouraged to examine, as part of the current servicing reviews, the Beaches express bus as a possible regular fare service in the morning and evening rush hours, using the Lake Shore Boulevard alignment, to encourage the use of public transit.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(A) recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that:

(1) a Task Force on the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor be created (similar to the one currently in place at the former City of Toronto), including appropriate staff support and an operating budget;

(2) Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Bussin, Jakobek, Layton and McConnell be appointed to such Task Force; and

(3) the Terms of Reference for the Task Force include the supervision of the detailed planning and public consultation related to the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project; and

(B) requested the Interim Lead for Transportation to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998:

(1) with further detailed costs for the rehabilitation of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway;

(2) with respect to the approximate figure of $1 million which would have to be spent on rehabilitation of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway, should the dismantling project be deferred for one year; and

(3) on the cost of moving the railway line to the north, the building of a bicycle path or walkway and the clean-up of the Lake Shore Boulevard route, in the event that the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway remains in place.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the status of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project and to provide some background on the origins of this project.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, had before it the following communications:

(i) (October 3, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk of Toronto advising that the Council of the City of Toronto on September 22 and 23, 1997, amended and adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8 of The Economic Development Committee, entitled "Economic Benefits of the Dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway"; and, in so doing:

(1) recommended that the Council of the new City of Toronto make the creation of a plan dealing with the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor a priority and create a broad-based process to move the planning forward, including funding to ensure this work;

(2) recommended that a Task Force on the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor, similar to the one presently in place at the City of Toronto, be created by the new City of Toronto, including appropriate staff support and an operating budget;

(3) requested the new City of Toronto Council to ensure full public participation on the impact of dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway, by instituting full public meetings in the community east of Leslie Street; and

(4) reiterated the vital importance of the Lakeshore/Gardiner Corridor to the GTA's economy, and requested that every possible effort be made to ensure that traffic capacity not be lost in the transition period if and when the Gardiner Expressway is removed.

(ii) (January 9, 1998) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, Toronto - East Toronto, requesting the Urban Environment and Development Committee to defer consideration of the communication referred to in (i) above to the next meeting of the Committee in order to allow deputations thereon from the community.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1) deferred consideration of the communication (October 3, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk of Toronto until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on February 9, 1998;

(2) requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to submit a report thereon to the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and to make a brief presentation at such meeting regarding the dismantling of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway to the Committee; and

(3) recommended to Council that the existing Task Force on the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor be encouraged to continue to meet pending the outcome of the review of its mandate and composition by the Special Committee to Review the Transition Team's Final Report.

The F. G. Gardiner Expressway between the Don Valley Parkway and Leslie Street was built in 1964 and 1965 through the eastern waterfront area, which generally consists of industrial and port uses. Originally planned as the Scarborough Expressway, it was to link the Gardiner Expressway to Highway No. 401 and via the East Metro Freeway to connect to Highway No. 407. Built as an elevated expressway, the substructure consists of reinforced concrete bents (columns and lateral beams), with the superstructure comprised of steel girders supporting a concrete deck and an asphalt running surface. The deck width can accommodate a six-lane cross-section, although it has only operated in a four or five-lane configuration. The expressway ends at Leslie Street in a ramp configuration designed at the time as a temporary terminus.

Over the years, traffic usage combined with the age of the facility and its rate of deterioration have created the need to undertake extensive rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway. Major repairs to the elevated portion of the Expressway west of the Don Valley Parkway have been ongoing since 1979. To date, little rehabilitation work has been carried out on the section of the Expressway east of the Don Valley Parkway. This is because of the relatively light traffic volumes on this portion of the Expressway compared to the portion west of the Don River which carries over twice the amount of traffic. The 20-Year F. G. Gardiner Expressway Rehabilitation Program, prepared in 1995, proposed that deck repairs be carried out between 1995 and 1998 and concrete bent repairs follow in years 1999 through 2002 on the Gardiner Expressway east of the Parkway. In 1995, deck and bent repairs were undertaken between the Don Valley Parkway and Saulter Street at a cost of $4.35 million.

During consideration of the Transportation Department's 1996-2000 Capital Works Program in early 1996, which included a continuation of the rehabilitation of the elevated expressway, the Metropolitan Toronto Planning and Transportation Committee requested a report on whether the rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway east of the Don Valley Parkway should be continued or whether dismantling should be considered. In response, a review was undertaken and its findings were presented at the March 6, 1996 Planning and Transportation Committee and adopted by Metropolitan Council on March 27, 1996. Based on the work carried out as part of the review, including transportation assessments and a cost comparison of the rehabilitation and dismantling options, the Transportation Department recommended that the east section of the Expressway be dismantled and new ramps to and from Lake Shore Boulevard be constructed. Given that this recommendation was based on a preliminary review, Council authorized the Department to undertake an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Preliminary Design Study to assess all possible alternatives in greater detail and to consult with stakeholders.

The EA Study was initiated in April of 1996 and completed in November of 1996. The results of the study indicated that the construction of new access ramps on the east side of the Don River and the dismantling of the existing structure from the new ramps to Leslie Street was the preferred option. The findings of the study were endorsed on December 9 and 10, 1996, by the Council of the City of Toronto.

At its meeting held on December 18, 1996, the Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 18 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, entitled "F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study". In so doing, the Metropolitan Council endorsed the recommendations of the EA Study, authorized the Commissioner of Transportation to file the Environmental Study Report (ESR), and authorized the Commissioner of Transportation to undertake the dismantling of the east portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway as described in the ESR, subject to obtaining final Environmental Assessment approval.

On April 14, 1997, formal notification was received from the Minister of Environment and Energy that the objections to the Environmental Study Report for the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study had been denied, effectively providing Environmental Assessment approval to the project.

Discussion:

The following sections describe the approved design, why this design was selected, how the public was consulted, and the present status of the project.

The Approved Design:

The approved design involves dismantling the F. G. Gardiner Expressway from a point 250 metres east of the Don River, easterly to Leslie Street, and that new ramps to and from Lake Shore Boulevard be constructed. The attached figure labelled Exhibit 1.1 depicts the approved design and the following points highlight the main features:

(i) removal of 1 280 metres of elevated expressway;

(ii) a new two-lane entrance ramp starting at Bouchette Street to meet the existing traveled lanes of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway about 250 metres east of the Don River;

(iii) a new two-lane exit ramp leaving the existing F. G. Gardiner Expressway approximately 250 metres east of the Don River and entering Lake Shore Boulevard just east of Bouchette Street;

(iv) Lake Shore Boulevard narrowed to two lanes each way from east of the Don Roadway to west of Bouchette Street to accommodate the new ramps;

(v) Lake Shore Boulevard eastbound widened to four lanes from Bouchette Street easterly to the approach to Carlaw Avenue to accommodate traffic exiting the F. G. Gardiner Expressway;

(vi) Lake Shore Boulevard westbound widened to four lanes from immediately east of Bouchette Street easterly to Carlaw Avenue to accommodate traffic entering the F. G. Gardiner  Expressway; and

(vii) other improvements include relocation of the rail lead from the median of Lake Shore Boulevard to the north boulevard, landscaping, provision of an interim bicycle facility and upgrading of the Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street intersections with Lake Shore Boulevard.

In response to the stakeholder input received on the design, a number of minor modifications have been made to the recommended design. These changes, described later in this report, do not change the original conclusions with respect to cost and feasibility. Metropolitan Council also requested the Commissioner of Transportation to report during the detailed design process on the feasibility of realigning the Cherry Street and Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection as part of this project. A feasibility study has been initiated and a report will be submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in the spring of 1998. However, to date no plans are in place to include any improvements at this intersection as part of the dismantling project.

Analysis and Evaluation of Alternative Designs:

A long list of alternatives was developed to a general level of detail so that basic characteristics and distinguishing features could be identified. From this, four alternatives were evaluated in greater detail according to three factors:

(a) urban character--socio-economic and natural environment;

(b) transportation service--route travel times and intersection levels-of-service based on existing traffic volumes plus future development traffic; and

(c) 50-year life-cycle cost expressed as a present value.

A brief description of the characteristics of the four alternatives follows:

Alternative 1: Rehabilitate the Existing Facility:

This alternative, considered as the base alternative, would involve the maintenance of the existing infrastructure as outlined in the 20-Year Rehabilitation Program. The F. G. Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard would remain in their present form. As a result, the current morning westbound travel time of five minutes and evening eastbound travel time of six minutes from Coxwell Avenue to Jarvis Street along Lake Shore Boulevard and the Gardiner Expressway would not change. The present value of the 50-year life-cycle cost of this alternative was estimated at $48 million.

Alternative 2: Rehabilitate the Existing Facility; Upgrade the Leslie Street Interchange:

This alternative is similar to 1(a) with the addition of a new ramp in the westbound direction over Leslie Street to resolve the existing traffic problems at the Leslie Street/Lake Shore Boulevard intersection in the morning rush hour. This improvement would decrease the morning westbound travel time to three minutes from Coxwell Avenue to Jarvis Street and leave the evening eastbound travel time at six minutes. The estimated present value of the 50-year life-cycle cost of this alternative was $54 million.

Alternative 3: Dismantle F. G. Gardiner Expressway;

Replace with New Access Ramps East of the Don River ("Ramps East"):

This option would involve the dismantling of 1 280 metres of the existing Expressway from approximately Saulter Street to its current terminus at Leslie Street. New ramps to and from Lake Shore Boulevard would be built approximately 250 metres east of the Don River and merge with Lake Shore Boulevard in the median. As part of this alternative, the existing rail lead from Booth Avenue to Carlaw Avenue would be moved from the median thus eliminating shunting of trains across Lake Shore Boulevard. Improvements would also be provided at Lake Shore Boulevard intersections with Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street. The estimated morning travel time westbound from Coxwell Avenue to Jarvis Street is 5.5 minutes, while the evening eastbound travel time is seven minutes. The estimated present value of the 50-year life-cycle cost of this alternative was $34 million.

Alternative 4: Dismantle F. G. Gardiner Expressway;

Replace with new Access Ramps West of the Don River ("Ramps West"):

Two options were developed for this alternative. Both options include dismantling of 1 740 metres of the Expressway east of the Don Valley sweep. New ramps to and from Lake Shore Boulevard would be constructed between Cherry Street and the Don Roadway. The new ramps would be built adjacent to the outside of the existing elevated structure and curve beneath the structure to merge with Lake Shore Boulevard. The main difference between the two options is the location of Lake Shore Boulevard and its intersection with Cherry Street. The first option, Option A, includes relocation of Lake Shore Boulevard to follow the alignment of the Expressway east of Cherry Street. Cherry Street is also realigned north of the Keating Channel, consolidating the existing two Cherry Street intersections into one. The second option, Option B, leaves the Lake Shore Boulevard/Cherry Street intersection as it is today. Construction of the ramps for both options would require relocation of several Gardiner Expressway columns. The morning westbound travel time associated with this alternative is six minutes, whereas the evening eastbound travel time increases to 10.5 minutes. The estimated present value of the 50-year life-cycle cost for Option A was $37 million and Option B was $35 million. Under both options, the weaving distance between the new ramps and the existing Jarvis Street interchange would be substandard. The interaction of vehicles entering and exiting the freeway in a restricted area would likely result in an increased number of motor vehicle collisions.

In evaluating the alternatives with respect to urban character, the criteria which were taken into consideration include the barrier effect of both the elevated Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard, the effect on pedestrian and cyclist circulation, the impact on recreational facilities and the change in air quality and noise. From an urban character perspective, both dismantling alternatives were favoured over the rehabilitation alternatives.

Overall, the evaluation indicated the "Ramps East" alternative as the preferred design. The major factors that contributed to the selection of this design include its lower cost compared to all other alternatives, the improved safety relative to the "Ramps West" alternative, the improvement of the urban character of the Lake Shore Boulevard East corridor, and the elimination of the traffic congestion problems that are currently experienced in accessing the westbound F. G. Gardiner Expressway at Leslie Street during the weekday morning peak period.

From a cost perspective, the financial analysis done for this study concluded that dismantling the eastern section of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway would yield a life-cycle cost savings of $14 million (net present value, 1996 dollars) when compared to the rehabilitation over a 50-year time horizon.

Public Participation:

Public involvement was an integral part of the study process for the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East EA and Preliminary Design Study. The public contact requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects, the environmental planning process under which the EA Study was conducted, were met and surpassed. Given the significance of the project and the diverse interests contained within the study area, a specialized public participation program was developed. The program was "multi-layered" to ensure that all interested parties were given an opportunity to provide input into the study process. Public Open Houses and Workshops were held for members of the general public; workshops were held for four specific interest groups; and regulatory agencies were consulted early in the study.

A Notice of Study Commencement was the first form of contact with the general public. Notices were placed in the Toronto Star and the East Toronto Community News for City of Toronto Wards 8 and 9 and brochures were mailed to property owners within the area bounded by Queen Street East, Woodbine Avenue, the Lake Ontario shoreline, and Jarvis Street (approximately 5,500 addresses). Through this initial mailing and subsequent public meetings, a mailing list of approximately 350 individuals was compiled. These individuals were notified of all opportunities for public involvement in the EA Study, including the date that the recommendations of the EA Study were to be considered by the Metro Planning and Transportation Committee. Two Study Status Reports were also sent to all individuals on this mailing list.

Public Open Houses and Workshops were held at two key decision points during the EA Study over a total of five days. The locations of these public forums were split between the South Riverdale area and the Beaches area. A total of approximately 125 individuals attended these public forums. Generally speaking, Beaches residents were supportive of rehabilitation while South Riverdale residents were in favour of either the "Ramps East" or "Ramps West" dismantling options.

Metro Transportation's Road Information Line was also used as a means of contacting the general public. Two specific program numbers were dedicated to the EA Study: one program number provided callers with general information regarding the project; and the second provided details on dates, times and locations of upcoming public meetings. Over the course of the EA Study a total of 254 calls were received.

As indicated above, workshops were held with four specific interest groups. These interest groups are as follows:

(a) the Gardiner-Lake Shore Task Force;

(b) the Task Force to Bring Back the Don;

(c) the South East Industrial Advisory Committee and the South East Toronto Industrial Awareness Organization (SETIAO/SETIAC); and

(d) various environmental interest groups. The groups invited include the following:

(i) Environmentalists Plan Transportation;

(ii) Ontario Environment Network;

(iii) Federation of Ontario Naturalists;

(iv) Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee;

(v) Citizens for a Safe Environment;

(vi) Toronto Field Naturalists Club;

(vii) Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway;

(viii) Friends of the Spit;

(ix) Transportation Options;

(x) Conservation Council of Ontario;

(xi) Better Transportation Coalition;

(xii) rideTOgether; and

(xiii) Transport 2000.

Two meetings were held with each of the above four specific interest groups. The material presented to these groups was the same as that presented to the general public. The Gardiner-Lake Shore Task Force, the Task Force to Bring Back the Don and SETIAO/SETIAC all supported the "Ramps East" alternative. The various environmental interest groups generally supported the "Ramps West" alternative.

Present Status and Future Schedule:

As indicated in the "Background" section of this report, Environmental Assessment approval for this project was obtained in April 1997. The process of preparing a detailed design and construction staging plan in preparation for the tendering of the demolition and construction contracts began shortly thereafter with the assistance of a multi-disciplinary consultant team, including structural and road design engineers, landscape architects, an artist, and communications consultants.

The general public, area business representatives and specific interest groups have been involved during the detailed design process through a Design and Construction Liaison Group (DCLG). Participants in this DCLG were solicited using the mailing list compiled during the EA Study. The DCLG has been divided into two forums: a Business and Industry Forum which meets during business hours, and a Public Forum which meets during weekday evenings. The role of the DCLG is to review all aspects of the dismantling project and provide timely advice and recommendations from a community perspective. To date, the DCLG has been successful in assisting Transportation Department staff and the consulting team in developing the design and construction staging plans in a way that is beneficial to the community and to the project itself. Seven meetings have been held to date by the full DCLG as well as numerous sub-group meetings on specific design issues.

The detailed design of the dismantling project is progressing to a scheduled awarding of the first contract(s) in July 1998. Through the detailed design process to date, including input from the DCLG, several enhancements to the approved EA Study design have been developed. The key enhancements are as follows:

(1) the duration of construction has been reduced from five years to three years;

(2) the duration of the detouring of Lake Shore Boulevard East traffic to Commissioners Street has been reduced from four years to 18 months;

(3) the motor vehicle detour route has been changed to avoid impacting traffic operations on Cherry Street;

(4) a detour route for cyclists during construction has been added;

(5) the rail lead between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street will be relocated from the median to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard East. This removes shunting operations from the middle of the Lake Shore Boulevard East and Carlaw Avenue intersection and permits the provision of a sidewalk on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard East without purchasing private property;

(6) the below grade concrete footings will not be removed when the columns of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway are removed; and

(7) a public art component for the project is being developed in consultation with the DCLG and municipal review agencies.

The members of the DCLG generally consider that these enhancements have improved the overall project. The reduction in construction and detouring durations, in particular, have reduced the concerns of the business members of the DCLG on the impacts to their operations during construction.

The capital cost estimate of the project is being refined through the detailed design process, including the effects of the above enhancements. Items (4), (5) and (7) above are additional costs while item (6) is a cost-saving. Items (1) and (2) will not increase the overall capital cost of the project but they will increase the yearly cash flow requirements. A preliminary cost estimate for the dismantling project based on the work completed to date has determined that the 50-year life-cycle cost of the project has not changed from the $34 million estimate reported in the EA study. However, the detailed design process is not yet complete and, therefore, the capital cost estimate for the project may be further refined.

The 1998-2002 Capital Works Program for the Transportation Department includes $7.9 million for the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project in 1998. This will cover the cost of joining together 100 metres of the Expressway deck to permit detouring between the eastbound and westbound lanes, the relocation of the railway leads on Lake Shore Boulevard East, the relocation of utilities along Lake Shore Boulevard East, and the preparation of the detour route along Commissioners Street. Contract(s) for this work are planned to be awarded in July 1998.

Summary:

The F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study, completed in November 1996, recommended that the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway be dismantled and new access ramps be constructed east of the Don River. From a life-cycle cost perspective, this design is less expensive ($34 million) than rehabilitating the existing Expressway structure ($48 million), it provides approximately the same level of transportation service and permits improvements to the urban character of the Lake Shore Boulevard East corridor. Metropolitan Council and the Council of the former City of Toronto endorsed the recommendations of this EA Study in December 1996. Environmental Assessment approval for the project was received in April 1997.

Since that time, detailed design has been proceeding in consultation with area residents and businesses and municipal review agencies. Several enhancements to the EA Study design have been developed through this process, which include a significant reduction in the duration of construction and associated traffic detours. The first contract(s) for the project are planned to be awarded in July 1998 and construction is scheduled to be complete by November 2000.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ms. Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design,

392-8590, Fax: 392-4426.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (February 6, 1998) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto:

As you may be aware, the Gardiner Expressway has been under reconstruction for several years. However, most of the Expressway has been repaired and is providing a route for over 156,000 vehicles per day.

The demolition of the east leg of the Expressway will result in the traffic being subject to two or three traffic signals, three railway spurs and a reduction of speed from 90 kilometres per hour to 60 kilometres per hour. Most of the industrial and commercial property owners object to the proposed demolition.

In addition, over 1,000 Scarborough and East Toronto residents have signed petitions objecting to the demolition.

Therefore, I would recommend that:

(1) the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to finalize restoration costs for the Gardiner Expressway east of the Don River, to be included in the 1999 Capital Budget;

(2) the Interim Lead also be requested to consult with local representatives and citizens to ensure that the ground level road is made more accessible with a new public sidewalk/walkway, trees, bike lane and possible relocation of the rail line; and

(3) staff report on the feasibility of having an international proposal call for the burying of the Gardiner Expressway.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (February 3, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee on February 2, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and Council, the adoption of the report dated January 19, 1998, from Mr. Jack Becker, Chair, Network Planning Sub-Committee, respecting the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project.

(Report dated January 19, 1998, addressed to the

Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee

from the Chair, Network Planning Sub-Committee.)

Purpose:

The F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project will be reviewed by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on Wednesday, February 9, 1998, with deputations being heard at 10:00 a.m. This former Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee's support and participation at the Urban Environment and Development Committee's meeting will need to be finalized. The motions contained in this report address this matter and are being put forth for the Committee's consideration.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee recommend to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and Council, that it support:

(1) the reduction in the number of lanes on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway from the Don River to Leslie Street by bringing the Expressway to ground elevation for this section as:

(a) it is the lowest long-term cost solution to rectifying the deteriorating elevated Expressway;

(b) ongoing operations and maintenance requirements will be reduced;

(c) it is in line with the Official Plan to improve the quality of the environment for the City;

(d) it is in line with the Official Plan's desire to realign the transportation modes usage, de-emphasising the use of private motor vehicles;

(e) it supports Canada's commitments at the recent Kyoto resolutions; and

(f) it better matches forecasted motorized vehicle usage for this road with physical road facilities;

(2) the implementation of the road humanization recommendations developed by the Toronto Transportation Department and its consultants in concert with the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project Design and Construction Liaison Group, which includes bicycle paths, sidewalks, road art, and green naturalization initiatives which, besides contributing to the improvement of air quality, should also contribute to reduction of the speeding problem that faces the City;

(3) recognizing that this section of Lake Shore Boulevard is also a transportation corridor, the extension of the proposed bicycle path:

(a) to the east on the boulevard on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard to Coxwell Avenue and then on the boulevard on the west or east side of Coxwell Avenue to Eastern Avenue/Queen Street with linkage on Lake Shore Boulevard at Coxwell Avenue to the Martin Goodman Trail on the south side, using an exiting underpass if possible, thereby providing more efficient commuter cycling from the beaches and Scarborough to downtown and also relieving the over-capacity situation on the Martin Goodman Trail both for cyclists and pedestrians; and

(b) to the west connecting to the Don Trail (northbound) and to the existing bicycle path section that continues to Cherry Street and then to Parliament Street (downtown access); and

(4) the improvement of the Cherry Street/Lake Shore Boulevard intersection for pedestrians, cyclists, commercial vehicles and other motorized vehicles, recognizing the difficult lines of vision and other impediments to safe usage of this intersection.

Comments:

Significant progress has been made in the project to date and the Committee's support is needed at this time as the new Council addresses its support for the project.

Recommendations Nos. (3) and (4) were previously presented by this Committee to the former Metro Planning and Transportation Committee and supported by that Committee. The recommendations are being represented in the context of ongoing approval for this project.

Contact Person and Telephone Number :

Mr. Jack Becker, 203-1711.

________

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i) (October 3, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk of Toronto advising that the Council of the City of Toronto on September 22 and 23, 1997, amended and adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No. 8 of The Economic Development Committee, entitled "Economic Benefits of the Dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway"; and, in so doing:

(1) recommended that the Council of the new City of Toronto make the creation of a plan dealing with the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor a priority and create a broad-based process to move the planning forward, including funding to ensure this work;

(2) recommended that a Task Force on the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor, similar to the one presently in place at the City of Toronto, be created by the new City of Toronto, including appropriate staff support and an operating budget;

(3) requested the new City of Toronto Council to ensure full public participation on the impact of dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway, by instituting full public meetings in the community east of Leslie Street; and

(4) reiterated the vital importance of the Lakeshore/Gardiner Corridor to the GTA's economy, and requested that every possible effort be made to ensure that traffic capacity not be lost in the transition period if and when the Gardiner Expressway is removed.

(ii) (February 9, 1996) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto, submitting a Motion regarding the dismantling of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway; the operative paragraphs of which Motion are as follows:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Urban Environment and Development Committee adopt and recommend to City Council that a consultation process be set up and funded by the City to inform and respond to the concerns of people of East Toronto before the construction stage of the dismantling project begins;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the consideration of a stop-light at the intersection of Logan Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard be abandoned, and that left-turn movements in all directions be prohibited at Logan Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a full strategy for preventing traffic infiltration in the corridor be developed, including infiltration into neighbourhoods at the former Greenwood Racetrack and the neighbourhoods in the vicinity of Kingston Road, the Beaches and South Riverdale;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a precise and detailed schedule be developed to show in what ways and for what period various portions of the project route would be affected;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Beaches express bus be examined as a possible regular fare service in the morning and evening rush hours, using the Lake Shore alignment to encourage public transit, and that the TTC be encouraged to investigate this proposal as part of the current servicing reviews."

(iii) (January 29, 1998) from Mr. John Ellis, President, Beach Triangle Residents Association, advising that the Beach Triangle Residents' Association (BTRA) Executive takes a very firm position in opposition to the proposal to demolish the Lake Shore overhead extension of the Gardiner Expressway; and that the BTRA Executive strongly encourages Council to oppose the notion of demolishing the Gardiner-Lake Shore overhead extension.

(iv) (February 4, 1998) from Mr. Erkki Pukonen, President and Chief Executive Officer, City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), advising that, in spite of TEDCO's active participation in the Design and Construction Liaison Group, the Corporation has a continuing concern about the potential upset caused by the dismantling of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway on businesses in the area; that, even with the improved detour, the Port Area businesses will have to cope with substantial delays due to a dramatic increase in traffic in the area; stating that TEDCO's efforts to renew the Port Area by unencumbering major parcels of land in the area for redevelopment could be seriously compromised by the disruption caused by the construction and increased traffic; further advising that the resulting condition of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East does not address TEDCO's continuing concern about the barriers which the Gardiner poses, and will continue to pose, to access to the Port Area; and that, from TEDCO's standpoint, this project does not yield a substantial improvement to the transportation network in the area.

(v) (February 9, 1998) addressed to Mr. John Kelly, Planning and Design Engineer, City of Toronto Transportation Department, from Mr. Robert A. Howald, Executive Vice-President, City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), advising that TEDCO has no objection to the relocation of the rail lines located in the centre of the Lake Shore Boulevard East road allowance to the north side, subject to confirmation from Toronto Terminal Railways that the relocation will not impair rail service to the Port Area and that it will be carried out at no cost to TEDCO.

(vi) (February 7, 1998) from Mr. Tim Gladney, President, Courier Broker Association of Toronto, expressing opposition to the demolition of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway.

(vii) (February 9, 1998) from Mr. Ronald A. Kuipers, Board Member, Community Bicycle Network, expressing support for the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project.

Ms. Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design, Transportation Department, made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Boris Mather, Vice-President, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway, and submitted a brief with regard thereto;

- Mr. Eli Ophek, Toronto Bay Group; and submitted a brief with regard thereto, as well as a petition bearing 44 signatures requesting that the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway be rehabilitated rather than demolished;

- Mr. James Alcock, Toronto;

- Mr. Kevin Walters, Toronto;

- Mr. John Wellner, Toronto Environmental Alliance, and submitted a brief with regard thereto;

- Mr. Jim Neff, Toronto;

- Mr. Peter Reble, Toronto, and submitted a brief with regard thereto;

- Mr. Ross Snetsinger, Chair, Rail Ways to the Future Committee, Transport 2000 Ontario; and submitted a brief with regard thereto, as well as copies of various articles extolling the use of public transit to reduce the effects of global warming;

- Mr. Wilfrid Walker, Member, Transport 2000 Ontario, and submitted a brief with regard thereto;

- Ms. Joan Doiron, Feet on the Street;

- Mr. Jack Becker, Toronto;

- Mr. Peter Lukas, Showline Studios, and submitted a brief with regard thereto;

- Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto; and submitted a brief with regard thereto;

- Mr. Alan Burke, Director, East Beach Community Association;

- Mr. Peter Smith, Community Coalition to Save McCleary Park, and Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

- Ms. Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

- Mr. David Hanna, Toronto;

- Ms. Catherine Nasmith; Co-Chair, Gardiner/Lake Shore Task Force;

- Mr. Erkki Pukonen, President and Chief Executive Officer, City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation;

- Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto;

- Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto; and

- Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.

(A copy of Exhibit 1.1, referred to in the foregoing report dated January 20, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

To provide additional information to Council as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting of February 9, 1998, requested the Interim Lead for Transportation to submit a report directly to Council, at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 4, 1998:

(1) with further detailed costs for the rehabilitation of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway;

(2) with respect to the approximate figure of $1 million which would have to be spent on rehabilitation of the eastern portion of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway, should the dismantling project be deferred for one year; and

(3) on the cost of moving the railway line to the north, the building of a bicycle path or walkway and the clean-up of the Lake Shore Boulevard route, in the event that the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway remains in place.

Discussion:

The information requested by the Committee is provided in the following three sections.

(1) Rehabilitation Costs:

If the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project does not proceed, all structural elements of the eastern portion of the Expressway will require extensive rehabilitation to restore the facility to a safe operating condition. These elements include the superstructure (parapet walls, median barrier, concrete deck and asphalt running surface), the structural steel girders, and the concrete bents (vertical columns and transverse beams). The estimated costs to rehabilitate each of these elements are as follows:

Generally we would tender contracts for between $5 million and $7 million each year until the rehabilitation program is complete. The rehabilitation program as presented to the former Metro Council in 1996 had a duration of nine years. An accelerated rehabilitation program could involve spending up to $9 million each year, however, we could not spend more than $5 million in 1998 due to the lead time required for the preparation and awarding of contracts. The duration of an accelerated rehabilitation program is estimated to be six to seven years.

(2) Details of Emergency Repairs.

On the basis of a structural inspection completed in January of this year, we have concluded that the following work must be undertaken to ensure the safe operation of the elevated Expressway until it is removed from service at the beginning of the year 2000:

(1) repair of bearing seats and pier caps;

(2) isolated concrete deck repairs;

(3) strengthening or shielding of portions of the parapet walls; and

(4) removal of loose concrete from the underside of the deck and bents.

This work is estimated to cost $1 million and was budgeted for as part of the Dismantling Project. Any delays to the Dismantling Project schedule will require additional emergency repairs. The cost of these additional repairs would be determined through on-going structural inspections, but we anticipate that a one year delay would result in the need for a minimum of approximately $250,000.00 to be spent on emergency repairs in addition to the $1 million already identified.

(3) Details and Costs of Potential At-grade Modifications if the Expressway is not Dismantled.

Railway Relocation:

It would be feasible to relocate the railway line from the median of Lake Shore Boulevard to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard if the Expressway structure remained in place, although it is not necessary to relocate the rail line if no modifications to Lake Shore Boulevard were to be considered. The cost of relocating the railway line is estimated to be $3.9 million plus the cost of purchasing a small parcel of private property at a price to be determined through negotiations.

Lake Shore Boulevard Rehabilitation:

The condition of the pavement on Lake Shore Boulevard varies between Leslie Street and the Don Roadway and, therefore, portions of the road require more extensive repairs than others. In general, however, the total cost of rehabilitating Lake Shore Boulevard under the Dismantling Project will be more costly because the eastbound lanes of Lake Shore Boulevard are being realigned, thus requiring more extensive construction.

If the elevated Expressway is not dismantled, and assuming that we do not then realign the eastbound lanes of Lake Shore Boulevard, the approximate total cost of rehabilitating Lake Shore Boulevard between Leslie Street and the Don Roadway would be $1.14 million.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Paths:

The cost of providing the combined bicycle/pedestrian path on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard included in the Dismantling Project is estimated at $450,000.00. This assumes that the elevated structure is removed, the railway line is relocated from the median of Lake Shore Boulevard to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard, and the eastbound lanes of Lake Shore Boulevard are shifted to the north. If the elevated structure remains, the feasibility of providing pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities on the north and south sides of Lake Shore Boulevard (and any major cost implications) are described below:

(a) North side of Lake Shore Boulevard:

(i) Between the Don Roadway and Booth Avenue, a sidewalk is feasible if the railway line is not relocated. If the railway line is relocated, a bicycle/pedestrian path would be feasible.

(ii) Between Booth Avenue and Carlaw Avenue, a sidewalk or a bicycle/pedestrian path is feasible if the railway line is not relocated. If the railway line is relocated, neither a sidewalk nor a bicycle/pedestrian path is feasible due to property constraints.

(iii) Between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street, either a sidewalk or a bicycle/pedestrian path is feasible whether or not the railway line is relocated. However, these facilities would have to be located on the north side of the railway line rather than beside Lake Shore Boulevard as is currently planned. In addition, due to the existing on-ramp to the Expressway at Leslie Street, it will be difficult to provide an appealing pedestrian environment.

(b) South Side of Lake Shore Boulevard:

(i) Between the Don Roadway and Logan Avenue it is feasible to install a sidewalk immediately beside the south curb of the Lake Shore Boulevard eastbound lanes without any other modifications.

(ii) Between Logan Avenue and a point approximately 240 metres west of Leslie Street, it would not be feasible to install a pedestrian and/or bicycle facility unless the railway line is relocated and the eastbound lanes of Lake Shore Boulevard are shifted to the north. The cost of the rail relocation is $3.9 million as previously noted. The shifting of the eastbound lanes would increase the rehabilitation costs of Lake Shore Boulevard by approximately $1 million as compared to the figure of $1.14 million quoted in a previous section of this report. It should be noted that there is an asphalt pedestrian path currently provided on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard between Carlaw Avenue and a point approximately 150 metres east thereof. This path is provided on private property.

(iii) Between a point approximately 240 metres west of Leslie Street and Leslie Street, it would not be feasible to provide either a pedestrian or a bicycle facility on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard if the Expressway is not dismantled unless private property is purchased. The location of the Expressway bents prevents the realignment of the eastbound lanes of Lake Shore Boulevard and there is insufficient property to provide a sidewalk beside the south curb of the road in its existing location.

Summary:

In the event that the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project does not proceed, we will need to spend $50.34 million over the next five to ten years to rehabilitate the elevated structure to a safe operating condition. This cost is for structural rehabilitation only; it does not include any at-grade enhancements.

Approximately $1 million in emergency repairs are required to the existing structures to keep the facility operational until the planned closure at the beginning of the year 2000. This amount is part of the dismantling project budget. If a decision is made to delay the project, at a minimum, an additional $250,000.00 of emergency repairs would be required.

The relocation of the existing railway line located in the median of Lake Shore Boulevard to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard is feasible if the Expressway structure is not dismantled. The cost of this relocation would be approximately $3.9 million plus property costs to be determined through negotiations. However, if no modifications are being considered for Lake Shore Boulevard other than simple rehabilitation, there is no compelling reason to relocate the railway line.

The cost of rehabilitating Lake Shore Boulevard between Don Roadway and Leslie Street, assuming that the alignment and width remains the same as today, is $1.14 million.

The cost of providing the combined pedestrian/bicycle facility on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard and the pedestrian facility on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard included in the Dismantling Project is approximately $450,000.00. To provide these facilities with the Expressway structure still in place would require the following additional elements:

(1) the relocation of the railway line for $3.9 million plus property costs to be determined through negotiations;

(2) the realignment of the eastbound lanes of Lake Shore Boulevard between Logan Avenue and a point approximately 240 metres west of Leslie Street for $1 million;

(3) the purchase of private property on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard between Booth Avenue and Carlaw Avenue at a price to be determined through negotiations; and

(4) the purchase of private property on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard between a point approximately 240 metres west of Leslie Street and Leslie Street at a price to be determined through negotiation.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design

Telephone - 392-8590, Fax - 392-4426.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following individuals in opposition to the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project:

(i) (February 23, 1998) from Mr. James Alcock, Chair, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway;

(ii) (February 25, 1998) from Mr. M. Comstock, Chair, St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Business Improvement Area;

(iii) (February 25, 1998) from Mr. D. Ophek, B.Sc., Toronto Bay Group;

(iv) (February 26, 1998) from Ms. S. Comstock , Toronto, Ontario;

(v) (February 27, 1998) from Mr. William Dale, Toronto, Ontario;

(vi) (February 28, 1998) from Mr. T. De Silva, Scarborough, Ontario; and

(vii) (March 3, 1998) from Mr. Antonio Dionisio, Business Manager, Local 183, Labourer's International Union of North America.)

3

Vending on Major Arterial Roads

(Former Metro Roads).

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration in the total perspective of all of the by-laws from the former area municipalities.

Council also adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the following Members of Council be added to the membership of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee:

Councillor Balkissoon,

Councillor Berardinetti,

Councillor Kelly,

Councillor Layton,

Councillor Mammoliti, and

Councillor Rae;

(2) the Road Allowance Sub-Committee be requested to:

(a) give consideration to the problem of vendors who successfully control multiple locations and establishing rules where vendors are only allowed one location rather than multiple locations;

(b) review the safety issue, particularly along busy arterial roads, such as Eglinton Avenue; and that Eglinton Avenue West, between Scarlett Road and Highway 427, be part of the regulated area; and

(c) report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, no later than September 1998, on one by-law for the City of Toronto and the selection of all locations in the City;

(3) all existing licences in the former area municipalities be continued on a month-to-month basis until such time as the new City-wide policy is in place;

(4) the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, through the Road Allowance Sub-Committee, on those locations where difficulties have been identified; and

(5) the following motions be referred to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee:

Moved by Councillor Chong:

'It is further recommended that, pending the submission of the report requested from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, the fee for a vending permit related to the lottery be increased from $1,500.00 to $2,000.00, rather than the $1,500.00 to $3,000.00 proposed for 1998 by the former Metropolitan Council.'

Moved by Councillor Giansante:

'It is further recommended that:

(1) if a vendor does not get an assigned location on the first lottery, a mechanism be established to provide for a second lottery; and

(2) the Road Allowance Sub-Committee be requested to address the issue of vending locations and permits for other types of vendors, i.e. flowers, tee-shirts, and comforters, and submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee outlining recommendations to deal with these problems.'

Moved by Councillor Mammoliti:

'It is further recommended that any future policy include vendors on private lands who would not be paying the appropriate taxes for vending, and that these spots be included in the lottery.'

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'It is further recommended that the recommendations of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee embodied in the communication dated February 27, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted.'

Moved by Councillor Pantalone:

'It is further recommended that:

(1) the Road Allowance Sub-Committee be requested to meet with its counterpart equivalents in the six Community Council areas and report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, in a timely fashion, on a comprehensive City-wide approach; and

(2) all motions, with the exception of the motion by Councillor Jakobek, and any amendments thereto, be referred to the expanded Road Allowance Sub-Committee as approved by Council.'

Moved by Councillor Rae:

'It is further recommended that the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested, in addition to assigning enforcement staff as requested by the Committee, to consult with staff of 52 Division of the Toronto Police Service to determine which locations and new locations are unsafe and should not be added to the City of Toronto's vending inventory.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (January 22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by adding the words "Parts (II), (III) and (IV) of" before the words "Attachment 'A'"; so that Recommendation No. (2) shall read as follows:

"(2) the vending locations listed in Parts (II), (III) and (IV) of Attachment "A" be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending spaces; and".

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(a) referred Part (I), entitled "Sites With Criteria Conflict", of Attachment "A" to the report (January 22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation (i.e., vending locations Nos. (7), (17), (18), (35), (81) and (110)) to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee for individual review and possible site visits;

(b) referred the vending locations identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area (i.e., Nos. (12), (19), (34) and (50)) to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee with a request that public hearings be held thereon prior to the 1998 lottery draw; and

(c) requested the Interim Lead for Transportation:

(i) to assign enforcement staff to stringently enforce vending in the Club/Entertainment District, particularly after 10:00 p.m.;

(ii) to review vending within the Club/Entertainment District in order to identify additional legal vending sites, and that these additional sites be distributed to vendors on the lottery draw waiting list; and

(iii) to submit a report to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee on the integration, in the long-term, of the two methods of allocating sidewalk/boulevard vending locations (i.e., the first come, first served method and the lottery draw method).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (January 22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval to continue the current vendor lottery process in order to allocate the designated sidewalk/boulevard vending locations on major arterial roads (former Metro roads).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The vending system on the major arterial roads (former Metro roads) is designed to be financially self-supporting on the basis of the associated fees.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the current method of allocating sidewalk/boulevard vending spaces on major arterial roads (former Metro roads) by lottery be continued for another three-year term, subject to an annual review of vending allocation policies and fees as outlined in this report;

(2) the vending locations listed in Attachment "A" be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending spaces; and

(3) the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

Background:

Since 1991, vending locations established on sidewalks or boulevards on the former Metro road system have been nominated (subject to confirmation by Council after consultation with affected parties, such as abutting owners) by staff and allocated by lottery draw. This process has worked efficiently and has been accepted by the vending industry as a fair and equitable method to allocate vending spaces.

From 1991 through to 1995, the lottery draw was held every two years. Commencing in 1995, Council approval was granted to hold the draw every three years. The vendor lottery draw is scheduled to be held in 1998 prior to the expiry date of the current permits, April 30, 1998.

Comments:

At the present time, there are a variety of vending systems in place. For example, vending locations on roads that were under the jurisdiction of the former City of Toronto are allocated on a first come, first served basis and the applicant submits a location for consideration. Vending locations on major arterial roads are determined by staff of the Transportation Department, confirmed by Council and allocated by lottery draw. In addition, there is a range of fees for vending within the new City of Toronto.

Amendments to Site Inventory:

At the present time 129 sidewalk/boulevard vending locations are designated on major arterial roads, with 99 sites located within the former City of Toronto and 30 in the other former municipalities. The establishment of vending locations in the suburban areas has not been very successful. For example, seven locations are designated in the Etobicoke district and no permits were issued for these sites in 1997 due to lack of interest by the vendors.

Since most of these locations were established prior to 1991, a review of each location has been carried out to ascertain their viability.

The review has revealed that some locations have been dormant for a long period of time, others have been tried and rejected numerous times and others are now in violation of the site approval criteria. The reason for the continuous returning of some sites is due to insufficient business. The sites that now fail to meet the site criteria are as a result of building modifications made by abutting property owners, in particular, the relocating of entrance ways or display windows to a position directly in front of the vending location.

It is very costly to issue and re-issue permits numerous times. Each time a permit is returned, records must be updated and a refund cheque prepared and mailed to the applicant. Also, the permit fee is $3,000.00 annually and the vendor expects to be able to recoup his costs and make a reasonable profit.

It is a benefit to vendors and to the City not to allocate vending locations that we know will not provide a satisfactory level of business for the vendor. It is, therefore, recommended that the vending locations listed in Attachment "A" be deleted from the current inventory of sites. Following deletion of these sites, there will be a total of 78 spaces available for the lottery.

Lottery Process for Site Allocation:

As indicated previously, there are several different ways of acquiring a vending spot in the new City of Toronto. In the former City of Toronto area, a vending space on a local road is awarded on a first come, first served basis. The space occupancy permit is renewed annually, and unless the vendor fails to renew it, it is essentially a space for life. On the former Metro road system (arterials), a vending space has been allocated for a three-year period using a lottery process. The spaces are proposed by staff in consultation with vendor representatives and confirmed by Council. One of the basic distinctions between these two methods of allocating vending licenses is that the lottery system allows vendors a chance to gain entry to the industry in spots which would not otherwise be available under the first come, first served system. However, with the lottery system, an existing vendor will likely lose the space at the end of the three-year term, and since there are always more names in the lottery than there are spaces, may not be able to continue in business. In the former municipality of North York, vending permits are provided on a first come, first served basis for a three-year period.

Staff is considering the pros and cons of each space allocation system and other options for allocation, in the context of a review of all by-laws in the amalgamated city. Furthermore, the fees are being reviewed for harmonization. It is expected that these reviews will not be complete for some time and, in the meantime, a number of vendors, existing and new, have prepared themselves for the lottery process for spaces on the former Metro road system. Since the cost of acquiring the necessary start-up hardware and credentials is substantial, a three-year permit period seems reasonable. To allow for possible changes as a result of the amalgamation reviews, the permit should be reviewed annually on the permit anniversary date. If a preferred allocation system and/or a revised fee schedule is determined by this date, the processes and fees can be amended at that time. In this regard, the existing by-law stipulates that "permits shall be for a term of one year, and may be renewed by the permit holder for two additional one-year terms, provided that no permit shall be valid beyond April 30 of the third year following the lottery draw . . . ."

Conclusions:

The lottery draw method for allocating vending spaces has been successful since 1991 and the vending industry is satisfied with this method. Furthermore, many vendors have made a significant investment with anticipation of securing a viable site for a three-year period to recoup their costs and to make a reasonable profit. It is, therefore, recommended that the lottery draw be held in 1998 and that those non-viable vending locations listed be deleted from the current inventory of sites.

Contact Name:

Mr. Ron Rout, Transportation Department, Road Allowance Control Section, 392-5365.

________

Attachment "A"

(I) Sites With Criteria Conflict:

( 7) Bloor Street East North Side 35.59 M East of Yonge Street

( 17) Bloor Street West North Side 16.24 M East of Bay Street

( 18) Bloor Street West North Side 43.94 M East of Bay Street

( 35) Bloor Street West North Side 18.06 M West of Yonge Street

( 81) University Avenue East Side 40.00 M North of Edward Street

(110) Adelaide Street West North Side 15.80 M West of Duncan Street

(II) Sites Not Issued During 1995, 1996, 1997:

( 4) Bloor Street East South Side 11.72 M West of Jarvis Street

( 20) Bloor Street West South Side 10.57 M East of Bedford Road

( 21) Bloor Street West South Side 13.82 M East of Devonshire Place

( 32) Danforth Avenue North Side 30.00 M West of Donlands Avenue

( 54) Queen's Park Crescent West Branch 72.22 M North of Hoskin Avenue

( 74) University Avenue West Side 35.82 M North of Dundas Street West

( 91) University Avenue West Side 5.40 M South of Gerrard Street West

(106) Yonge Street East Side 25.22 M South of Wellington Street East

(303) The Queensway North Side 13.10 M East of Uno Drive

(304) The Queensway South Side 34.70 M East of Rothsay Avenue

(307) Dundas Street West North Side 21.50 M West of Burnhamthorpe Road

(308) Dundas Street West South Side 2.30 M East of Royal Avon Crescent

(412) Ellesmere Road South Side 8.50 M West of Neilson Road

( 84) University Avenue East Side 11.22 M North of Elm Street

(III) Sites Not Issued 1996, 1997:

( 33) Danforth Avenue South Side 85.22 M West of Greenwood Avenue

( 41) Danforth Avenue North Side 13.97 M West of Greenwood Avenue

( 61) Spadina Avenue East Side 10.26 M North of Lake Shore Boulevard

( 65) Spadina Avenue East Side 8.70 M South of Baldwin Street

( 85) University Avenue East Side 12.72 M North of Gerrard Street West

( 96) Yonge Street East Side 6.83 M North of S. Edge Granby Street

(104) York Street West Side 18.15 M North of Queen's Quay West

(107) Yonge Street East Side 10.02 M North of Wood Street

(201) Yonge Street East Side 52.50 M North of Bishop Avenue

(202) Yonge Street West Side 18.20 M North of Elmhurst Avenue

(214) Don Mills Road West Side 12.20 M North of Science Centre Driveway

(314) Burhamthorpe Road North Side 95.00 M West of The West Mall

(401) Warden Avenue East Side 14.00 M North of Bridletowne Circle

(IV) Sites Returned Two Times or More: Number

of Times

Returned

( 22) Bloor Street West South Side 30.00 M West of Bay Street 2

( 28) Bloor Street East North Side 6.86 M East of Park Road 2

( 46) Lakeshore Boulevard W. South Side 7.00 M East of Rees Street 2

( 58) Queen's Park West Side 12.92 M North of College Street 2

( 68) University Avenue East Side 14.00 M South of Pearl Street 2

( 76) University Avenue West Side 194.00 M N. of Queen Street West 2

( 92) University Avenue West Side 18.50 M N. of Wellington Street 2

(206) Yonge Street West Side 12.80 M N. of North York Blvd. 2

(209) Yonge Street West Side 13.40 M S. of Finch Avenue West 2

(306) Bloor Street West North Side 15.60 M West of Islington Avenue 2

(410) Morningside Avenue East Side 29.00 M N. of Lawrence Avenue 2

( 3) Bloor Street East South Side 9.45 M West of Church Street 3

( 8) Bay Street East Side 39.00 M N. of Queens Quay West 3

( 40) Dundas Street West South Side 43.18 M East of Bay Street 3

( 71) University Avenue East Side 28.00 M N. of Richmond Street W. 3

( 97) Yonge Street West Side 45.52 M N. of Queen Street West 3

(310) Dundas Street West South Side 11.80 M East of Subway Crescent 3

( 26) Bloor Street West South Side 133.50 M West of Queen's Park 4

________

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i) (February 5, 1998) from Ms. Lisa McGee, General Manager, The Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, submitting correspondence from the owners of major properties within the Bloor-Yorkville BIA requesting that the following street vending locations be added to the list of locations proposed for deletion in Attachment "A" to the report dated January 22, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, entitled "Vending on Major Arterial Roads":

- (12) Bloor Street West, south side, 13.40 metres west of Queen's Park (Royal Ontario Museum);

- (19) Bloor Street West, south side, 12.70 metres east of Bay Street (Manulife Centre);

- (34) Bloor Street West, south side, 10.15 metres east of Queen's Park Crescent (Club Monaco); and

- (50) Queen's Park, west side, 47.02 metres south of Bloor Street West (Royal Ontario Museum).

(ii) (January 26, 1998) addressed to the Bloor-Yorkville BIA from Ms. Ann Shaw, Senior Property Manager, Hudson's Bay Company, expressing concern regarding hot dog vendors on the street in the Bloor-Yorkville area.

(iii) (February 5, 1998) addressed to the Commissioner of Transportation from Mr. R. S. Saunderson, Bloor at Yonge Developers Inc., expressing concerns with, and objections to, the number of street vendors permitted on the north side of Bloor Street East directly in front of The Hudson's Bay Centre; and requesting that the number of street vendors be limited to one, and that the vendor be required to provide a new umbrella and to maintain such umbrella in good condition throughout the licensing period.

(iv) (February 6, 1998) from Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto, advising that he has received a letter from, and had the opportunity to meet with, Mr. Abbas Eskandari regarding his application to renew his hot dog vending permit; that Mr. Eskandari's site, which is No. 110, is listed as one of the sites to be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending spaces; requesting that a satisfactory reason be provided as to why this site is being removed including a review of police reports, health reports and other pertinent information; and recommending that, if a satisfactory solution is not available, staff be requested to submit a report on this matter to the next Council meeting.

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Abbas Eskandari, Vendor;

- Ms. Lisa McGee, General Manager, Bloor-Yorkville BIA; and filed a map of vending sites in the Bloor-Yorkville area;

- Mr. Gary M. Nayman, Director, Leasing and Franchising, Club Monaco;

- Mr. Remo R. Commisso, Club Monaco Fashion Cafe;

- Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto;

- Councillor Ila Bossons, Midtown;

- Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway--Humber; and

- Councillor John Adams, Midtown.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 27, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee on February 27, 1998, recommended to Council that:

(1) the following vending locations be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending spaces:

(a) Nos. (7), (18), (81), and (110) listed in Attachment "A" to the report (January 22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation; and

(b) Nos. (12) and (34), identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area;

(2) vending location No. (17) listed in Attachment "A" to the aforementioned report be moved east so that it is positioned between the two windows of the GAP store;

(3) vending location No. (19), identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, not be deleted from the inventory of sidewalk/boulevard vending spaces;

(4) vending location No. (50), identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, not be deleted; and, further, that the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, in consultation with officials from the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), be requested to move the site to a more suitable location in front of the ROM;

(5) the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to:

(a) identify vending location No. (35) listed in Attachment "A" to the aforementioned report, as a site for possible deletion during 1998 and notify potential vendors thereof; and

(b) meet with representatives from Hammerson Canada Inc. with a view to incorporating a vending site within the redesign of the streetscape;

(6) the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation and Members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be requested to work with members of the Bloor-Yorkville BIA in order to develop a streetscape which would accommodate vendors in a manner compatible with the ambiance desired in the area; and

(7) the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to review the rules as they apply to the Club/Entertainment District with a view to establishing specific rules for that District which would address the needs and criteria of the area; and further, that stringent enforcement be provided within the District.

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee reports, for the information of Council having directed that this matter be forwarded directly to Council for consideration with Clause No. 3 of Report No. 2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee; and that the Community Councils be advised of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee's action in this regard.

Background:

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee had before it a report dated February 13, 1998 from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on February 9, 1998, during consideration of a report dated January 22, 1998 from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, among other things:

(1) referred Part (I), entitled "Sites With Criteria Conflict", of Attachment "A" to the aforementioned report (i.e., vending locations Nos. (7), (17), (18), (35), (81) and (110)) to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee for individual review and possible site visits;

(2) referred the vending locations identified by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area (i.e., Nos. (12), (19), (34) and (50)) to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee with a request that public hearings be held thereon prior to the 1998 lottery draw; and

(3) requested the Interim Lead for Transportation, among other things, to submit a report to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee on the integration, in the long-term, of the two methods of allocating sidewalk/boulevard vending locations (i.e., the first come, first served method and the lottery draw method).

The following persons appeared before the Road Allowance Sub-Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. R.S. Saunderson, Bloor at Yonge Developers Inc.;

- Ms. Lisa McGee, General Manager, Bloor Yorkville BIA;

- Ms. Constance MacDonald, Royal Ontario Museum;

- Ms. Briar de Lange-Riddell, Hammerson Canada Inc.;

- Mr. Remo Commisso, Club Monaco Fashion Cafe; and

- Mr. Abbas Eskandari, Toronto, Ontario.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 1, 1998) from Mr. A. Eskandari, Toronto, Ontario, submitting comments regarding the allocation of vending sites and suggesting that all vendors at all locations be treated in the same manner; and enclosing a letter signed by two individuals in support of Mr. Eskandari remaining at his current vending location.)

4

Request for Extension of Deadline for

Three-Day Roving Charity Casinos.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, struck out the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee contained in Clause No. 4, rescinded the action of the Committee contained in Item (e), entitled "Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals", embodied in Clause No. 15, and inserted in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the results of the referendum against the establishment of casinos, charity gaming casinos, and video lottery terminals in Toronto, be endorsed by City Council and transmitted to the Provincial Government;

(2) in place of the Sub-Committee on Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals established by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, a Sub-Committee on Gambling be formed to address the appropriate distribution of gambling revenues between the Province of Ontario and charities;

(3) a campaign be developed against permanent charity gaming clubs and video lottery terminals being established in the City of Toronto; and the Sub-Committee on Gambling be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on continuing roving charity casinos;

(4) the Provincial government provide immediately, a greater percentage of funds collected from gambling venues to be used to provide Gamblers Anonymous programs in the Province of Ontario;

(5) the City Solicitor be requested to:

(a) submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, through the Sub-Committee on Gambling, on the implications of the '. . . recent British Columbia Supreme Court declaration that the Gaming Proceeds Distribution Regulations B.C. Reg. 362/97 is invalid and without force because the Province of British Columbia cannot receive, require or authorize 'for profit' gaming companies to receive, the proceeds of gaming that is managed and conducted by charitable and religious organizations, and to do so not only contradicts the British Columbia Lottery Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 278, but as well expressly contradicts s. 207(1)(b) of the Criminal Code'; and

(b) provide in such report a synopsis of all by-laws related to this matter;

(6) the Interim Functional Lead for Planning be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, through the Sub-Committee on Gambling, on the history and statistical data related to charity casinos that have existed in Toronto for a number of years; and

(7) the Sub-Committee on Gambling be requested to hold public consultation meetings in all of the Civic Service Centres of the former Metropolitan Toronto municipalities.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council request the Province of Ontario to permit three-day roving charity casinos a three-month extension from the proposed cancellation date of March 31, 1998, in order to provide the opportunity for the Council of the City of Toronto to review the matter of permanent charity gaming clubs and video lottery terminals.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 4, 1998) addressed to Councillor Sgro, North York Humber, from Mr. David S. Willmot, President and Chief Executive Officer, Ontario Jockey Club, clarifying inaccuracies in Mr. Jack Lakey's article in the March 4, 1998, edition of the Toronto Star, regarding the possibility of a charity gaming club being located at Woodbine Racetrack; and advising that although the Ontario Jockey Club has an agreement, in principle, with Funtime, no decisions or actions will be taken in this regard until after the City of Toronto's Task Force has completed its study and that they intend to cooperate fully with the City with respect to this initiative.)

5

Contract No. T-27-98:

Don Mills Road Bridge Over CN Rail and Don River

South of Overlea Boulevard--Structure Rehabilitation.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 21, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, subject to striking out Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) and renumbering the remaining Recommendations accordingly, having regard that City Council at its meeting held on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, by the adoption of Clause No. 12 of Report No. 2 of The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, entitled "1998 Interim Capital Budget Capital Projects Requiring Urgent Financing Approval", approved the financing for this project; so that the Recommendations shall read as follows:

"It is recommended that:

(1) Contract No. T-27-98, for the rehabilitation of the two bridges on Don Mills Road over the CN Rail and the Don River, be awarded to Soncin Construction Corporation who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,322,184.96;

(2) Winter Associates be retained to perform the construction supervision for this project; and

(3) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.":

Purpose:

To award a contract for the rehabilitation of two bridges on Don Mills Road over the CN Rail and the Don River south of Overlea Boulevard.

Funding Source:

The Transportation Department's 1998 - 2002 Capital Works Program Estimates include an amount of $11,600,000.00 gross, $9,933,000.00 net, under Project No. C-TRO55, Bridge Reconstruction Program. Contract No. T-27-98 forms part of that program, and the estimated total project cost, including contingencies and supervision, is $2,644,184.96 gross, $2,498,224.96 net. Approximately $145,960.00 is recoverable from Bell Canada. This project was also included as part of the Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Department's approved 1997-2001 Capital Works Program. The total project cost is:

(1) Bid Price Amount $2,322,184.96

(2) (a) Design 60,000.00

(b) Construction supervision, 24 weeks at $6,750.00 per week (estimate) 162,000.00

(3) Other costs (estimate): 100,000.00

(a) quality control testing

(b) traffic signage ____________

$2,644,184.96

To accommodate this work both capital financing and pre-budget approval in the amount of $2,644,184.96 gross, $2,498,224.96 net, is required at this time. An expenditure of $2,498,224.96 for this project can be financed by the issuance of debentures for a term up to, but not exceeding, 20 years.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) pre-budget approval be granted in the amount of $2,644,184.96 gross, $2,498,224.96 net, to accommodate the rehabilitation of the Don Mills Road bridges;

(2) financing in the amount of $2,644,184.96 gross, $2,498,224.96 net, to be debentured (if necessary) for a term up to, but not exceeding, 20 years, be approved for this project;

(3) Contract No. T-27-98, for the rehabilitation of the two bridges on Don Mills Road over the CN Rail and the Don River, be awarded to Soncin Construction Corporation who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,322,184.96;

(4) Winter Associates be retained to perform the construction supervision for this project; and

(5) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Comments:

On January 19, 1998, the City Clerk's Department opened tenders for:

Contract No. T-27-98 Don Mills Road Bridges over the CN Rail and Don River south of Overlea  Boulevard--Structure Rehabilitation

Number Name $ Amount

7 Soncin Construction Corporation 2,322,184.96

8 Bridgecon Construction Ltd. 2,495,887.31

1 Belor Construction Ltd. 2,502,039.32

5 Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. 2,555,160.00

3 G. Tari Limited 2,610,952.25

9 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 2,783,411.33

Armbro Construction Ltd. 2,860,702.99

Dufferin Construction Co. 2,866,681.03

Graham Bros. Const. Ltd. 3,141,212.67

Tenders Nos. 7 and 8 contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The revised figures are shown above.

The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors, and also from the Chief Financial Officer regarding the surety company which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond. This project is included in the 1998 interim capital budget that is scheduled for the Budget Committee meeting on January 26, 1998, and for City of Toronto Council on February 4, 1998.

Scope of Work:

The work in this Contract comprises the rehabilitation of two bridges on Don Mills Road over the CN Rail and the Don River. The work includes cleaning and coating of the structural steel; new concrete deck, curbs, parapet walls and approach slabs; pier repairs; new expansion joints; asphalt paving and waterproofing, and utility duct bank supports.

Approval of Consultants:

The Transportation Department maintains a list of approximately 20 bridge consultants, who have expressed an interest in gaining work with the Department. Following a review of five proposals and taking into account their ability to provide the services required to successfully complete the assignment on time and within budget, Winter Associates was selected in 1997 to design the rehabilitation works and prepare contract documents for this structure. The selection was made in accordance with the "Policy for Selection of Architects and Professional Consulting Services". The proposal submitted by these companies also identified their ability, experience and a cost estimate for providing construction supervision services for this project, but no award for these services was made at that time.

Based on the satisfactory performance of this consultant to date and their knowledge of this project, it is appropriate that Winter Associates also be retained to provide construction supervision services for the project as outlined in this report at a cost not to exceed $6,750.00 per week of construction. The Consultant appointment will be subject to the completion of an agreement containing clauses satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Transportation.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. L. Rach, Director of Planning and Engineering, 392-5344.

(Councillor Balkissoon, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he is on a leave of absence from Bell Canada.)

(Councillor Giansante, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his wife is an employee of Bell Canada.)

6

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Sheppard Avenue East and Gateforth Drive.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Sheppard Avenue East and Gateforth Drive.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's Capital Budget Projections under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals at this location is $98,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Sheppard Avenue East and Gateforth Drive; and

(2) installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing.

Background:

At the request of staff of the former City of Scarborough Works and Environment Department in 1997, Metro Transportation staff reviewed the feasibility of providing pedestrian crossing protection on Sheppard Avenue East at Gateforth Drive.

Discussion:

Sheppard Avenue East in the vicinity of Gateforth Drive is a five-lane arterial road with a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour and a two-way 24-hour traffic volume of approximately 25,800 vehicles. Adjacent traffic control signals are located on Sheppard Avenue East 220 metres to the east at Washburn Way and 350 metres to the west at Malvern Street.

A pedestrian crossover (PXO) warrant study revealed that 229 pedestrians crossed Sheppard Avenue East at this location in an eight-hour study period. Of these 229 pedestrians, 150 were delayed more than ten seconds before they could complete their crossing. Based on this information, both the pedestrian volume and the pedestrian delay warrants are 100 percent satisfied and, therefore, the installation of a PXO is technically warranted.

Staff evaluated the warranted PXO according to guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability of Pedestrian Crossovers in Metropolitan Toronto". This location fails to meet four of the "environmental standards". Specifically, the operating speed on Sheppard Avenue East is above 60 kilometres per hour, Sheppard Avenue East is more than four lanes wide, there is a driveway within 30 metres of the location, and there is loading activity (eastbound and westbound TTC bus stops) in the immediate vicinity. The collision records provided by the Toronto Police Service for the five-year period ending December 31, 1996, revealed that there were no pedestrian-related collisions during this period.

Given the foregoing prevailing conditions, a pedestrian crossover cannot be expected to perform in a satisfactory fashion at this location. Accordingly, traffic control signals would provide the best form of crossing control and are recommended for this location.

Sheppard Avenue East is a major arterial road which used to be under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto. The traffic control signals will not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial link within the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the signals will provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 15, 1998. Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The results of the tender call will be reported to the Urban Environment and Development Committee at the earliest opportunity after April 15, 1998.

Conclusions:

The installation of a PXO is warranted on Sheppard Avenue East and Gateforth Drive. However, because of the failure of this location to meet the "environmental standards" for the installation of a PXO, traffic control signals will potentially provide for a safer crossing environment and should be installed at this location.

Contact Name:

Mr. Martin Maguire, P.Eng., Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

McCowan Road at Kenhatch Boulevard.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of McCowan Road and Kenhatch Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's Capital Budget Projections under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals at this location is $98,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of McCowan Road and Kenhatch Boulevard; and

(2) installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing.

Background:

At the request of Councillor Raymond Cho in 1997, staff conducted an investigation to determine the feasibility of providing traffic control signals at McCowan Road and Kenhatch Boulevard.

Discussion:

McCowan Road in the vicinity of Kenhatch Boulevard is a four-lane arterial road with a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour and a two-way 24-hour traffic volume of approximately 27,000 vehicles. Adjacent traffic control signals are located 430 metres to the north at Sandhurst Circle South and 320 metres to the south at Huntingwood Drive.

An eight-hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted by Metro Transportation and revealed that traffic control signals are technically warranted. The results are listed below:

Warrant Compliance

(1) Minimum Vehicular Volume 44 percent

(2) Delay to Cross Traffic 100 percent

(3) Collision Hazard 7 percent

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to meet the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals.

McCowan Road is a major arterial road which used to be under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto. The installation of traffic control signals will not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial link within the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the signals will provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 15, 1998. Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The results of the tender call will be reported to the Urban Environment and Development Committee at the earliest opportunity after April 15, 1998.

Conclusions:

Traffic control signals are warranted at the intersection of McCowan Road and Kenhatch Boulevard and should be installed.

Contact Name:

Mr. Martin Maguire, P. Eng., Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Wilson Avenue and Ridge Road.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

To propose the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Ridge Road coincident with the removal of the existing split pedestrian crossover (PXO) located approximately 19 metres west of the intersection.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Departments's Capital Budget Projections under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals on Wilson Avenue and Ridge Road is $78,000.00 including the removal of the existing split PXO.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Ridge Road;

(2) coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the existing split pedestrian crossover be removed;

(3) installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing; and

(4) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of an area resident, the Transportation Department investigated the feasibility of replacing the existing split PXO, located on Wilson Avenue approximately 19 metres west of Ridge Road, with traffic control signals. The resident expressed concern that pedestrians have been struck by vehicles while crossing in the pedestrian crossover.

Discussion:

Wilson Avenue in the vicinity of Ridge Road is a five-lane arterial road with a two-way continuous centre left-turn lane. The posted speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has a westbound near-side and an eastbound far-side bus stop at Ridge Road in bus bays. The area is mainly residential with single-family homes fronting onto Wilson Avenue. Pierre Laporte Middle School is located on the north side of Wilson Avenue and an apartment building and small plaza are located on the south side of Wilson Avenue. There is a pedestrian access to Roding Park located on the north side of Wilson Avenue opposite Ridge Road. Adjacent traffic control signals on Wilson Avenue are located at Julian Road approximately 250 metres to the east and Highview Avenue/Lexfield Avenue approximately 220 metres to the west.

There are approximately 319 pedestrians crossing Wilson Avenue at the subject split PXO during an eight-hour period of a typical weekday. We observed numerous turning vehicles in the immediate area creating potential conflicts with pedestrians.

We have evaluated the operational characteristics of this split PXO location according to the guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability at Pedestrian Crossovers in Metropolitan Toronto". The results are as follows:

This location does not meet four of the criteria listed above, specifically the operating speed, driveways in immediate area, high volume of turning vehicles and loading zone locations. The Toronto Police Service has been asked to provide speed enforcement on this section of Wilson Avenue.

A review of Toronto Police Service collision records for the three-year period between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 1996, revealed that three collisions have occurred involving pedestrians crossing Wilson Avenue in the vicinity of the split PXO. One collision involved a senior citizen who received minor injuries. The driver of the vehicle was charged in this collision. The second collision involved a cyclist who received minor injuries. The driver of the vehicle was charged in this collision. The third collision resulted in a fatality. A 12-year-old cyclist entered Wilson Avenue immediately west of the split PXO and was struck by a westbound vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was not charged in this collision. Although the Toronto Police Service collision records are unavailable for 1997, we have received unconfirmed reports of another collision involving a pedestrian at the subject PXO.

Wilson Avenue is a major arterial road which used to be under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto. The replacement of the PXO with traffic control signals will not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial link within the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the signals will provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 15, 1998. Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The results of the tender call will be reported to the Urban Environment and Development Committee at the earliest opportunity after April 15, 1998.

Conclusion:

The existing split PXO on Wilson Avenue at Ridge Road is no longer operating in a satisfactory fashion. Traffic control signals should be installed at Wilson Avenue and Ridge Road to improve the operational safety of this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

9

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Kipling Avenue and Genthorn Avenue/

St. Benedict's Catholic School Driveway.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

To propose the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Genthorn Avenue/St. Benedict's Catholic School Driveway, coincident with the removal of the existing split pedestrian crossover (PXO) located immediately to the south of the intersection.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's Capital Budget Projections under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals on Kipling Avenue and Genthorn Avenue/St. Benedict's Catholic School Driveway is $78,000.00 including the removal of the existing split PXO.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) traffic control signals be approved on Kipling Avenue at Genthorn Avenue/St. Benedict's Catholic School Driveway;

(2) coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the existing split pedestrian crossover be removed;

(3) installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing; and

(4) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

This location was investigated at the request of St. Benedict's Catholic School. They expressed concern that the existing split PXO, which serves the local community and St. Benedict's Catholic School (elementary) and Percy Johnson Secondary School, both located to the immediate west, is unsafe for pedestrians and, therefore, should be replaced with traffic control signals.

Discussion:

Kipling Avenue in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. At Genthorn Avenue there is a southbound left-turn lane, a northbound far-side bus bay, and a southbound near-side bus bay. There is a school bus lay-by immediately south of this location on the west side of Kipling Avenue. Split PXOs are located approximately 256 metres to the north of Genthorn Avenue at Hinton Road, and 215 metres to the south, at Snaresbrooke Drive.

There are approximately 462 pedestrians crossing Kipling Avenue at the subject split PXO during an eight-hour period of a typical weekday. We observed numerous turning vehicles in the immediate area creating potential conflicts with pedestrians.

We have evaluated the operational characteristics of this split PXO location according to the guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability at Pedestrian Crossovers in Metropolitan Toronto". The results are as follows:

This location does not meet four of the criteria listed above, specifically the operating speed, driveways in immediate area, high volume of turning vehicles and loading zone locations. The Toronto Police Service has been asked to conduct speed enforcement on this section of Kipling Avenue.

We conducted a review of the Toronto Police Service collision records for the five-year period ending December 31, 1996. During this period there have been three collisions involving pedestrians crossing within the split PXO. In all three incidents, the pedestrians received minor injuries.

Kipling Avenue is a major arterial road which used to be under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto. The replacement of the PXO with traffic control signals will not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial link within the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the signals will provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 15, 1998. Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The results of the tender call will be reported to the Urban Environment and Development Committee at the earliest opportunity after April 15, 1998.

Conclusions:

The existing split PXO on Kipling Avenue, south of Genthorn Avenue is no longer operating in a satisfactory fashion. Traffic control signals should be installed to improve the operational safety of this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Proposed Eastbound Right-Turn Lane Designation:

Lake Shore Boulevard West at Palace Pier Court.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

To designate the eastbound curb lane on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Palace Pier Court for right turns only.

Funding Sources:

Funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the southerly eastbound lane on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Palace Pier Court be designated for right-turning vehicles only, between Palace Pier Court and a point 30.5 metres west thereof; and

(2) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

The intersection of Lake Shore Boulevard and Palace Pier Court was signalized as part of the preparation for the multi-year Humber Bridges Reconstruction Project. This project has changed the alignment of eastbound Lake Shore Boulevard, just east of Palace Pier Court. Also, the addition of streetcar platforms and bicycle lanes on Lake Shore Boulevard west of Palace Pier Court during 1997 has changed the eastbound approach to the Lake Shore Boulevard and Palace Pier Court intersection.

Discussion:

The eastbound approach to Palace Pier Court on Lake Shore Boulevard West currently consists of a through lane, an exclusive right-turn lane and a two-metre wide bicycle lane. There is a single eastbound discharge lane on the far side of the intersection which aligns with the eastbound through approach lane.

The proposed right-turn lane designation will reduce the potential for conflicts within the intersection.

Conclusions:

The designation of the eastbound curb lane on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Palace Pier Court for right turns only will reduce the potential for vehicular conflicts at this location and regulate the use of the curb lane.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Proposed Northbound Right-Turn Lane Designation:

Leslie Street at Old Leslie Street/

North York General Hospital Access.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

To designate the northbound curb lane on Leslie Street at Old Leslie Street/North York General Hospital Access for right turns only.

Funding Sources:

Funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the easterly northbound curb lane on Leslie Street at Old Leslie Street/North York General Hospital Access be designated for right-turning vehicles only, buses excepted, between Old Leslie Street/North York General Hospital Access and a point 30.5 metres south thereof; and

(2) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

The construction of the Sheppard Avenue Subway required the reconstruction of the intersection of Leslie Street and Old Leslie Street/North York General Hospital Access and the installation of traffic control signals. This work also included the installation of an exclusive northbound right-turn lane. A bus stop is situated in the northbound right-turn lane at the intersection.

Discussion:

The intersection of Leslie Street and Old Leslie Street/North York General Hospital Access is controlled by traffic control signals. The northbound approach consists of one exclusive left-turn lane, three through lanes and an exclusive right-turn lane.

With the exception of buses, the curb lane should be used exclusively by motorists turning right to enter the North York General Hospital complex which forms the eastern leg of the intersection. The proposed lane designation will reduce the potential for conflicts within the intersection. The "buses excepted" tab will warn motorists to be aware of buses proceeding through the intersection from the curb lane and merging into the through lane.

Conclusion:

The designation of the northbound curb lane at Leslie Street and Old Leslie Street/North York General Hospital Access for right turns only, buses excepted, will minimize the potential for vehicular conflicts at this location and regulate the use of the curb lane.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

12

Proposed Introduction of Traffic Regulations:

2015 Lawrence Avenue West.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

To introduce a westbound left-turn prohibition and northbound exit prohibitions at a fire/ambulance station access at 2015 Lawrence Avenue West in conjunction with the recent installation of traffic control signals on Lawrence Avenue West at Ralph Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget Estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) westbound left turns be prohibited at all times at the access to 2015 Lawrence Avenue West, located approximately 25 metres west of Ralph Street;

(2) entry be prohibited at all times to Lawrence Avenue West from the access to 2015 Lawrence Avenue West, located approximately 25 metres west of Ralph Street; and

(3) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Council Background:

Further to Clause No. 29 of Report No. 17 of The Metropolitan Planning and Transportation Committee, entitled "Safety and Operational Road Modifications: Various Locations", which was approved by Metropolitan Council on August 13, 1997, traffic control signals were installed on Lawrence Avenue West at Ralph Street on November 18, 1997. The traffic signal control included a major driveway on the south side of Lawrence Avenue West, directly in line with Ralph Street, thus creating a standard "cross" signalized intersection.

Discussion:

A fire and ambulance station (the 'Fire Hall') is located on the south-west corner of the intersection of Lawrence Avenue West and Ralph Street. Prior to the installation of traffic control signals at this intersection, the Fire Hall had a single uncontrolled access on Lawrence Avenue West, 25 metres west of Ralph Street. The Fire Department initiated discussions about traffic control at this location, and the design and operation of traffic control signals and driveway access was agreed upon by all parties involved. Upon signalization of the Lawrence Avenue West and Ralph Street intersection, the Fire Hall obtained full access to the driveway forming the south leg of the intersection, while maintaining limited access to their driveway on Lawrence Avenue West. The design includes Fire Hall signal pre-emption from the south leg of the intersection.

Coincident with the installation of traffic control signals, the Fire Hall access was intended to operate in the following way for reasons of public safety:

(1) the majority of vehicular movement would use the new signal controlled driveway at Ralph Street; and

(2) the existing Fire Hall driveway, 25 metres west of Ralph Street, was narrowed and would operate as an eastbound right-in-only access.

Since the installation of traffic control signals in November, 1997, this arrangement has been operated on a trial basis, with interim signage in place to advise motorists.

To formalize these access arrangements, it is recommended that the westbound left-turn movement, and entry to Lawrence Avenue West, at the access to 2015 Lawrence Avenue West be prohibited at all times. A viable alternate is provided for emergency vehicles and staff to access and egress the site via the traffic control signals at Lawrence Avenue West and Ralph Street.

Conclusions:

The prohibition of westbound left-turn movements, and entry to Lawrence Avenue West, at the access to 2015 Lawrence Avenue West will improve traffic safety at this access and at the intersection of Lawrence Avenue West and Ralph Street.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

13

Appointments to Board of Management

of the Toronto Zoo.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 22, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Zoo:

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the following be appointed to the Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo for an 18-month term, commencing January 1, 1998:

- Mr. David LaFayette;

- Mr. Peter Evans;

- Mr. David Warren; and

- Dr. Donald Layne.

Background:

The Zoological Society of Metropolitan Toronto nominated the above-noted candidates to the Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo at its meeting of the Board of Directors on January 14, 1998.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Calvin J. White, General Manager, 392-5909.

14

Improving Speed Limit Compliance on

Major Arterial Roads--Status Report.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Province of Ontario be requested to provide funding from moving violations to support traffic enforcement initiatives in the City of Toronto.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, and having directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to Council for information.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

(a) to review the British model of traffic enforcement and submit a preliminary report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of establishing a similar system in Toronto;

(b) to examine the feasibility of establishing a "Made in Toronto" system of traffic control signal warrants, and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(c) to review:

(i) the system of roads in each of the former Metro area municipalities in order to identify which roads should be examined in greater depth on a system-wide basis; and

(ii) all collector roads in order to determine whether common policies and priorities may be established with respect thereto;

and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(d) to canvass all Members of Council with a view to identifying any traffic control devices which may be dangerous or inappropriate, and submit a report thereon to Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation:

Purpose:

To report on the status of the stakeholder consultation regarding improving speed limit compliance on major arterial roads formerly under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto.

Funding Source:

The funds associated with the ongoing tests are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget estimates.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this interim status report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting on June 4, 1997, Metropolitan Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, entitled "Discussion Paper Regarding Ways of Improving Speed Limit Compliance on Metropolitan Roads". That report contained recommendations that the paper be used as the basis for stakeholder consultation on this issue, and that a report be submitted by December, 1997, on the results of various field tests, and the consultation effort.

Because numerous field tests are underway and will be concluded in the spring of 1998, this is an interim report intended to update Council on the stakeholder consultation and the status of the field tests.

Discussion:

(A) General Comments:

As described in our earlier report, there is a wide variety of factors which influence driver behaviour and it is very difficult to control the speed of vehicles. Most drivers travel at a speed which they consider to be comfortable regardless of the posted speed limits. In the absence of sustained police enforcement, there are seldom significant changes in average vehicle speeds when speed limits are changed on arterial roads.

It is most desirable to operate street systems with traffic flowing at uniform speeds. Drivers are generally more patient, pass less often, and are less likely to tailgate, which reduces the potential for head-on, side-swipe, and rear-end collisions. Appropriate speed limits on major arterial roads are determined by traffic engineering surveys, which include an analysis of roadway conditions, collision records and existing traffic operations and operating speeds.

The establishment of the appropriate speed limit simplifies the work of enforcement officers, because most of the traffic is moving at approximately the same speed. Blatant speeders are easier to identify, safe drivers are not penalized, and police officers are not asked to enforce and defend unrealistic and arbitrary speed limits.

In our earlier report we described a range of tests to measure the effectiveness of certain devices on speed compliance. A table listing the locations of specific field measurements and tests is provided in Appendix 1. We will report on the results of these in a follow-up report later this year.

(B) Functional Road Classifications:

Roads considered in this study were formerly under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto and fall under the classification of major arterial roads. As a result of amalgamation, roads considered in this project will be referred to by their functional classification, rather than as Metropolitan Roads. The following discussion explains the function of major arterial roads in comparison to other roads throughout the City.

A road network is subdivided into a number of road types based upon the scale and function of the individual road sections. This classification system is a hierarchy of road types based upon commonly accepted traffic engineering practices. The six basic classifications for roads, as described in traffic engineering manuals, are:

(i) public lanes--residential/commercial;

(ii) local roads--residential/commercial;

(iii) collector roads--residential/commercial;

(iv) arterial roads--minor/major;

(v) expressways--some at-grade connections; and

(vi) freeways--no at-grade connections.

The classification of a particular road is based on the following criteria:

(i) adjacent land use;

(ii) service function;

(iii) volume;

(iv) flow characteristics;

(v) speed;

(vi) vehicle types; and

(vii) connection to other roads.

Generally, the degree of access to adjacent land uses is indirectly proportional to the degree of mobility provided by the road. For example, local roads usually have unrestricted access to adjacent lands with little or no provision for through traffic, while a freeway has no direct access to adjacent land uses and, consequently, little or no local traffic.

Expected operating speeds also increase within the classification of roads, with public lanes operating in the 10-30 kilometres per hour range up to freeways operating in the 80-120 kilometres per hour range. These speeds are the generally accepted speeds for the different types of roads. However, public opinion of an appropriate speed can vary from location to location depending on the nature of the road and the surrounding land uses. Each stakeholder or user, such as drivers, transit patrons, cyclists, pedestrians and adjacent land owners, may have a different point-of-view and the challenge is to try to accommodate all of the expectations of the different groups.

Since this report deals with speed compliance on major arterial roads, the following general characteristics are presented to describe major arterial roads:

(i) traffic movement is of prime consideration--serves more through movements than local movements;

(ii) usually some degree of access control;

(iii) traffic volumes in the range of 10,000 to 50,000 vehicles per day;

(iv) traffic flow is not expected to be interrupted except at traffic control devices;

(v) operating speeds are in the 50-70 kilometres per hour range;

(vi) can include up to 20 percent heavy trucks and buses;

(vii) cyclists and pedestrians should be accommodated (sidewalks/wider lanes/separate lanes);

(viii) parking restrictions are usually in effect during peak periods;

(ix) intersection spacing is in the 200 metre range;

(x) rights-of-way vary from 20 to 45 metres; and

(xi) generally at least four lanes of travel, with exclusive turn lanes.

Further to point (i), within a major urban environment an effective network of efficient arterial roads is crucial to the economic and commercial viability of the City, and provides essential access for emergency services. Arterial roadways provide access for commuters in public transit as well as private vehicles, and provide access for a wide range of commercial interests. In addition, the maintenance of a high level of service on the major arterial network allows traffic-calming or traffic restrictions to be implemented in neighbourhoods by providing adequate capacity for diverted traffic.

Most of the roads previously under the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Toronto can be classified as major arterial roads. As such, operating speeds in the range of 50-70 kilometres per hour can be expected on these roads. However, even within the broad category of arterials, individual roads have different characteristics that change user's expectations of what operating speed would be appropriate.

(C) Stakeholder Comments on Options to Reduce Speeding:

In mid-1997 the "Discussion Paper Regarding Ways of Improving Speed Limit Compliance" was initially distributed directly to 27 interest groups plus Metropolitan Toronto Councillors. Many of the Councillors and stakeholders then distributed the report to other interested groups, and staff distributed additional copies in response to requests. In total, 23 responses were received, including written replies, meetings and telephone conversations. The responses included statements of support or opposition for speed limit compliance improvement measures described in our report, suggestions for additional measures and references to relevant research materials. These responses are summarized in Appendix 2 (Table) and Appendix 3 (Summary of Detailed Comments).

Discussion of the Responses:

(i) Reduce Speed Limit (System-Wide):

The reduction of speed limits on a system-wide basis was supported by one stakeholder group. However, five other stakeholder groups were opposed to this measure, and a sixth had concerns about applying this measure without also making physical changes to the roads.

Studies in Toronto and other jurisdictions have identified speed limit reduction to be ineffective in improving speed limit compliance, especially in the absence of continued, dedicated enforcement. In addition, a greater variation in speeds usually results, which increases the risk of head-on, rear-end and side-swipe collisions.

Field tests of the impacts of sustained police enforcement along with lower speed limits are currently underway, and results of these will be reported on in the follow-up report.

(ii) Install Speed Limit Signs (Where Default 50 kilometres per hour Speed Limit Applies):

None of the responding stakeholders commented on this measure which involves the installation of signs where the standard 50 kilometres per hour speed limit applies. Field tests of the effectiveness of advisory speed limit signs on driver behaviour are underway, and the results will be reported in the follow-up report.

(iii) Enforcement:

Increasing the use of manned radar enforcement was supported by nine stakeholder groups, and opposed by none. The Toronto Police Service has purchased six laser speed-measuring devices, and it is expected that the effectiveness of speed limit enforcement will be improved as a result. However, the Toronto Police Service views speeding as one of numerous, equally unsafe traffic infractions occurring throughout the City which need to be enforced by police. The allocation of additional staff hours to speed limit enforcement would be a challenge considering budget reductions. Discussions between Toronto Police Service and Transportation Department staff, regarding special duty enforcement efforts, are focused at the Police divisional level (22 Division in Etobicoke and 31 Division in North York in particular) at this time.

Photo enforcement of speed limits was supported by six stakeholder groups. Two additional groups supported the use of photo radar under specific circumstances, and one group expressed concerns about its impacts on individuals' right to privacy. Five stakeholder groups indicated support for photo enforcement of red light running, and an additional two were supportive under specific conditions.

In a letter to the Commissioner of Transportation dated August 11, 1997, the Minister of Transportation of Ontario indicated opposition to photo enforcement by stating:

"... it is critical that the driver be apprehended and held responsible for his or her actions. Photo enforcement technologies target the licence plate of the vehicle, and thus are directed at the vehicle owner, rather than the driver. Evidence difficulties may arise where the vehicle owner is unable or unwilling to identify the driver. As a result, prosecution of the owner may provide an opportunity for the driver to avoid ministry education programs or sanctions, such as fines, demerit points or licence suspension."

Since the Highway Traffic Act is the responsibility of the Provincial Government, there must be a change in the Provincial Government's position on this issue and appropriate changes in legislation before photo radar can be used in the City of Toronto. The Metropolitan Toronto Council has requested the Ontario Government's permission to use photo enforcement by forwarding the Commissioner of Transportation's reports on speed limit compliance, and on "Running Red Lights" (August 18, 1997) to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. A response has not been received from the Province.

Reports on field tests of sustained enforcement will be included in the follow-up report. An update on the status of photo enforcement will also be included.

(iv) Installation/Timing of Traffic Control Signals:

Five stakeholder groups suggested specific traffic signal timing design practices to improve speed limit compliance. One suggestion was to design the start of green at adjacent signals based upon the speed limit, so that no travel time advantage would be gained by speeding. Another was to reduce the overall green time available to arterial traffic by providing longer walk durations for pedestrians to cross arterial roads, thereby decreasing the duration of green time on the arterial roads. However, another stakeholder group opposed any traffic signal co-ordination practices which would introduce unnecessary stops to vehicular traffic. In addition, some suggested posting signs to advise motorists of the design speed for the prevailing signal co-ordination pattern.

The objective of co-ordinating traffic signals along a route is to reduce stops and delays. This is desirable because it reduces exhaust emissions and fuel consumption. In Toronto, co-ordination is designed to favour the heavy in-bound traffic flow in the morning, and out-bound flow in the afternoon, and to provide the most efficient flow possible in two directions in balanced flow conditions. Co-ordination is based upon the speed limit during times of day when traffic volumes are not at their peak, and is based upon slightly lower speeds during congested periods, because vehicles will be slowed by traffic "friction". A number of other factors can affect the start and duration of green times at traffic signals along a route, including minimum pedestrian crossing requirements, priority treatments for turns, and transit priority.

In other jurisdictions, in the few cases where signs are used to advise motorists of the design speed for signal co-ordination, they are generally used on one-way streets where there is no demand to balance co-ordination for both directions of traffic. Therefore adjacent signals usually remain red until each group of vehicles arrives.

None of the stakeholder groups supported the installation of traffic control signals as a measure to improve speed limit compliance, and one group was concerned that the installation of unnecessary signals would result in undue traffic congestion. The installation of traffic control signals is based upon well-established warrants defined by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and criteria developed by the Transportation Department, and there is agreement among the stakeholders and transportation professionals that the installation of unjustified signals would not be an effective means of promoting speed limit compliance.

Staff are currently reviewing co-ordination design practices, and although there appear to be few opportunities, we will investigate whether changes can be made which reduce the likelihood that motorists will speed up between signals, but which do not significantly increase stops and delays.

(v) Traffic-Calming:

The discussion paper made specific reference to reducing corner radii to a minimum in order to increase speed limit compliance. Three stakeholder groups support this practice. However, two stakeholder groups, the Toronto Transit Commission and the Ontario Trucking Association, oppose this practice out of concern that it would decrease the mobility of buses and tractor-trailers, and introduce a risk of these vehicles mounting curbs while making right turns. Clearly, road design practices in Toronto must balance the needs of all sidewalk and road users.

Implementation of other physical traffic-calming measures was supported by two stakeholder groups which promote pedestrian safety. These groups support traffic-calming measures such as raised road surfaces at intersections (speed tables), textured and coloured surfaces in pedestrian crossings, and additional pavement markings in advance of crosswalks at intersections.

One stakeholder expressed a specific concern that the installation of unnecessary four-way stop control in an area can reduce motorists' compliance with stop control in general, and even result in right-angle collisions at existing two-way stop intersections. Another expressed a concern that physical traffic-calming measures are inappropriate for arterial roads.

Three stakeholders opposed the use of traffic-calming on major arterial roads, two were of the opinion that implementation of traffic-calming will increase peak period congestion on alternate routes, and the third felt that many physical traffic-calming elements reduce travel times of public transit vehicles more than travel times of passenger cars. There are additional considerations related to physical measures intended to significantly reduce motorists' speeds on roads with a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour or more. Large variations in vehicle speeds are known to increase the risk of rear-end and side swipe collisions, and emergency vehicle response times may be lengthened as a result of increased congestion.

Although there is some stakeholder support for physical traffic-calming measures, it is generally accepted by transportation professionals that physical traffic-calming elements such as speed tables and speed bumps are suitable only for local roadways intended for low speed operations. Therefore, these types of treatments are not appropriate for major arterial roads in the City of Toronto.

(vi) School Speed Zones:

Concerns about the implementation of school speed zones are expressed by one respondent, Durham Region. The concerns are based upon 1996 studies conducted by Durham Region staff, which found a decrease in speed limit compliance, and an increase in the range of vehicle speeds, following implementation of three school speed zones. These results are consistent with those found in reports by the City of Hamilton (1994) and the City of Edmonton (1996).

The effect of the implementation of school speed zones supported by sustained police enforcement is currently being studied, and the results and conclusions from this work will be included in the follow-up report.

(vii) Pavement Marking Modifications:

Three stakeholder groups supported the installation of "shared lane" pavement markings as a speed compliance improvement measure. "Shared lane" is the name given to the placement of white bicycle logos in the road adjacent to the curb. None opposed this measure; however, the Toronto Transit Commission would be concerned about any pavement marking changes resulting in lane widths less that the 3.2 metre width of a bus, including its mirrors. Test sites for "Shared lane" and white edge line pavement marking treatments do include some lane width reductions; however, the pavement marking modifications will not result in lane widths less than 3.3 metres. The results of these field tests will be included in the follow-up report.

Two groups support the white edge line treatment; however, the Metro Cycling and Pedestrian Committee had a specific concern about this treatment: that debris and snow would accumulate to the right of the line, making it unattractive for cyclists. Tests of the white edge line pavement marking treatment are in progress, and special attention will be paid to the maintenance of the pavement to the right of the line during field observations. Results will be included in the follow-up report.

Narrowing the width of traffic lanes was supported by three stakeholder groups. The Toronto Transit Commission's concern about lane widths less than 3.2 metres also applies to this measure. In addition, staff of the former City of Toronto expressed concern that narrowing curb lanes might compromise cyclists' safety. Clearly, there is a need to balance the interests of all users in determining safe and appropriate lane widths. Field test results will help to quantify the benefits of lane width reductions in improving speed limit compliance, and conclusions will be included in the follow-up report.

(viii) Co-ordination of all Design Elements to Support Speed Limit:

Six stakeholders supported the concept of co-ordinating all design and operational elements, including road alignment, streetscaping, presence or absence of on-street parking, number and spacing of accesses and other elements to support a road's speed limit. This strategy is also supported by many transportation professionals. In a March, 1997, study by Transport Canada, entitled "Safety, Speed and Speed Management: A Canadian Review", it was reported that a combination of measures has successfully resulted in speed reductions.

Data is being collected at a number of sites throughout the City to assess the degree of speed limit compliance as a function of certain road design elements and the surrounding environment. On the basis of this data, we expect to be able to establish that different road design elements and different types of adjacent land use affect the general operating speed of vehicles using our roads.

(ix) Public Traffic Safety Programs:

This strategy for improving speed limit compliance was supported by nine stakeholder groups, and opposed by none. Specific suggestions included: advertising campaigns encouraging drivers to value safety over speed and convenience, and to counteract the social acceptability of speeding; improved driver training programs for high school students; and advertisement of police speed enforcement campaigns.

An expert in the theory of motorists' risk assumption, Dr. Gerald Wilde from Queen's University, suggests that positive reinforcement of speed limit compliance would be more effective than occasionally penalizing speeders. For instance, Dr. Wilde suggests reductions in licensing fees and insurance rates for drivers with a number of years of violation-free driving. Implementation of this type of program would require the co-operation of the Province of Ontario, and private insurance companies.

The Toronto Police Services Board identified a number of current programs aimed at combatting aggressive driving in the report, entitled "Traffic Enforcement: Red Light Violations" (June 3, 1997). Field tests are currently underway to determine the impacts of a highly publicized, intensive speed limit enforcement campaign. The results of this work will be included in the follow-up report.

(D) Additional Measures Recommended by Stakeholders:

(i) Discourage Automobile Manufacturers from Advertising which Promotes Speeding:

This suggestion was made by three of the stakeholder groups. Notably, in their 1996-97 Statement of Policy, the Canadian Automobile Association recommends that "the motor vehicle industry should not advertise motor vehicles by demonstrating unsafe manoeuvres and/or high speed operation of the vehicles as drivers may be tempted to copy these dangerous acts." Staff are in agreement with this position and will suggest means of dealing with this issue further in the follow-up report.

(ii) Support "Zero Tolerance" Enforcement of Speed Limits:

This recommendation was also made by multiple stakeholders. Currently, Toronto Police officers use their discretion when determining whether to warn drivers or what severity to charge drivers for speeding offenses.

(iii) Use Variable Message Signs for Driver Feedback ("Roadside Speedometers"):

A number of stakeholders suggested this strategy. The concept includes an automatic speed measuring device, and a variable message sign which displays the vehicle's speed to the motorist. The Transport Canada report, entitled "Safety, Speed and Speed Management: A Canadian Review" (March, 1997), indicates that this has been effective in reducing speeds of the fastest drivers and increasing speed limit compliance in some circumstances. The authors recommend that the strategy is effective in localized areas, for instance near schools, when supported by occasional police enforcement. However, if it is not supported by enforcement, or other legal methods of stopping the drivers in order to convey a message, some drivers would accelerate in order to trigger and register a higher speed on the device. The most appropriate location for these devices may be in front of schools where they are operated by the police in co-operation with children, parents and teachers. They are not recommended for system-wide application on arterial roads.

(iv) Investigate the City of Kingston's "Traffic Offender Program":

At the suggestion of a stakeholder group, the "Traffic Offender Program" run by Kingston Police was investigated by staff. Since April, 1996, the City of Kingston permits officers apprehending motorists for speeding (and other Highway Traffic Act violations) to give the motorist the option of completing the Traffic Offender Program. The program requires payment of a $55.00 fee, and successful completion of a written test. Certain conditions, such as a previous charge within a one-year period, disqualify motorists from being given this option. The program is currently a pilot project and does not have the support of the Provincial Government at this time. The Toronto Police Service is aware of the program, and is monitoring the progress of the pilot. However, a program like this may not be appropriate for a City as large as Toronto.

(v) Community Watch Programs:

Stakeholders also suggested that community-based watch programs could assist the Toronto Police Service in focusing limited enforcement resources. The recent decentralization of the Toronto Police Service's traffic units to its 17 divisions has enabled officers to concentrate on problems specific to their communities. Community Police Liaison Committees identify problem areas to the police divisions, and prioritize responses based upon the particular community's needs.

(vi) Ensure that Government-Owned Vehicles Comply with Speed Limits:

It was suggested that staff driving City of Toronto vehicles, including transit vehicles, set an example by never speeding. Further, one stakeholder suggested that a telephone number for public comment be displayed on these vehicles. This suggestion has merit, and opportunities to implement such a plan on City of Toronto fleet vehicles at low cost may arise if the logos and wordmarks on City vehicles are updated. A message similar to the "How's My Driving" caption currently displayed on transport trucks may also be appropriate. More study is required with respect to the design of this message, the opportunities to install it and the logistics of its use.

Conclusion:

The stakeholder consultation process has yielded valuable input into the study of improving speed limit compliance on major arterial roads. Once field tests are completed this spring, staff will submit a final report on the issues and conclusions, which will reflect input received during the consultation process.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Peter Hillier, Senior Manager, Traffic Regions, 392-5348.

________

Appendix 1

Summary of Speed Compliance Devices Being Measured

________

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a copy of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Metro Planning and Transportation Committee, headed "Discussion Paper Regarding Ways of Improving Speed Limit Compliance on Metropolitan Roads", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on June 4, 1997.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway--Humber; and

- Councillor John Adams, Midtown.

(A copy of Appendices 2 and 3 to the foregoing report dated January 20, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the February 9, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

15

Other Items Considered by the Committee.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause, for information, subject to rescinding the action of the Committee contained in Item (e), entitled "Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals", embodied in Clause No. 15, and inserted in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the results of the referendum against the establishment of casinos, charity gaming casinos, and video lottery terminals in Toronto, be endorsed by City Council and transmitted to the Provincial Government;

(2) in place of the Sub-Committee on Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals established by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, a Sub-Committee on Gambling be formed to address the appropriate distribution of gambling revenues between the Province of Ontario and charities;

(3) a campaign be developed against permanent charity gaming clubs and video lottery terminals being established in the City of Toronto; and the Sub-Committee on Gambling be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on continuing roving charity casinos;

(4) the Provincial government provide immediately, a greater percentage of funds collected from gambling venues to be used to provide Gamblers Anonymous programs in the Province of Ontario;

(5) the City Solicitor be requested to:

(a) submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, through the Sub-Committee on Gambling, on the implications of the '. . . recent British Columbia Supreme Court declaration that the Gaming Proceeds Distribution Regulations B.C. Reg. 362/97 is invalid and without force because the Province of British Columbia cannot receive, require or authorize 'for profit' gaming companies to receive, the proceeds of gaming that is managed and conducted by charitable and religious organizations, and to do so not only contradicts the British Columbia Lottery Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 278, but as well expressly contradicts s. 207(1)(b) of the Criminal Code'; and

(b) provide in such report a synopsis of all by-laws related to this matter;

(6) the Interim Functional Lead for Planning be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, through the Sub-Committee on Gambling, on the history and statistical data related to charity casinos that have existed in Toronto for a number of years; and

(7) the Sub-Committee on Gambling be requested to hold public consultation meetings in all of the Civic Service Centres of the former Metropolitan Toronto municipalities.")

(a) Toronto Transit Commission: Workplace Safety.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:

(January 16, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, regarding lost time due to workplace injuries; advising that the General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) did respond to the question raised by the Committee with respect to this issue; reiterating the comments of the General Manager, viz:

(1) the targets established by the Plant Maintenance Department were overly ambitious; and

(2) the issue of workplace injury is a priority item at the Commission and strategies have been implemented to focus on identification and prevention;

further advising, in response to the question that workplace safety might be jeopardized due to the downsizing efforts undertaken at the TTC, that the Commission is confident that the downsizing (which was heavily weighted towards management and administrative staff) had no effect on workplace safety.

(b) Membership - Task Force on an Access and Equity Action Plan,

Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) recommended to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that Councillor Pam McConnell be appointed as the representative of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to the Task Force on an Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights; and

(2) received the following communications:

(i) (January 21, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc, Chair, Task Force on an Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, requesting that each Standing Committee designate a member to either serve on the Task Force or to act as a liaison between the Task Force and each Standing Committee.

(ii) (January 27, 1998) addressed to Councillor Joe Mihevc, York--Eglinton, from Councillor Pam McConnell, Don River, putting forward her name as a representative from the Urban Environment and Development Committee to sit on the Task Force on an Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights.

(c) Duplicate Street Names in the New City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to investigate the issue of duplicate street names which now exist in the City of Toronto as a result of the amalgamation of Metro and its area municipalities, and submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on March 23, 1998.

(d) Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising.

The Urban and Environment and Development Committee reports having concurred with the recommendation embodied in the following report from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair, Urban Environment and Development Committee, viz:

"It is recommended that the Bell Canada Telephone booth advertising proposal be deferred until the end of 1998 to provide the opportunity to assess the reaction to the installations in Etobicoke and East York in the context of a general assessment of advertising possibilities on the public road allowances.":

(i) (January 21, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair, Urban Environment and Development Committee, recommending that the Bell Canada Telephone booth advertising proposal be deferred until the end of 1998 to provide the opportunity to assess the reaction to the installations in Etobicoke and East York in the context of a general assessment of advertising possibilities on the public road allowances.

(ii) (January 26, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, for a further report on Bell Canada telephone booth advertising; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(iii) (January 21, 1998) from the Metropolitan Clerk advising that the Metropolitan Council on December 10 and 18, 1997, directed that Clause No. 1 of Report No. 21 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, headed "Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising", be struck out and referred to the appropriate Committee of the new City of Toronto Council for consideration, with a request that the Commissioner of Transportation review the revenue streams and report thereon following consultation with the Community Councils on the anticipated impact on local by-laws and advertising policies.

(iv) (December 10, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk of Toronto advising that the Council of the City of Toronto on December 8, 1997, gave consideration to Clause No. 2 of Report No. 26 of The Executive Committee, entitled "Advertising Signage on Outdoor Telephone Booths - Metropolitan Toronto Road Allowance"; and setting out the action taken by the former City Council with respect thereto.

(v) (January 21, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto advising that the Scarborough Community Council on January 21, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) that consideration of the issue of illuminated commercial advertising on telephone booths be deferred, and that Community Council input be sought before the UEDC deals with this issue; stating that the Scarborough Community Council requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to submit a report to the UEDC providing background information indicating the position taken on this matter by the former City of Scarborough Council, such information to be also provided to all Members of Scarborough Community Council; and, in addition, to include the position taken by the former Scarborough Council regarding advertising on bus shelters.

(vi) (February 4, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation responding to a request from the Scarborough Community Council to report on the position of the former City of Scarborough Council concerning advertising on telephone booths and on bus shelters; and recommending that this information be received and, further, that it be forwarded to Members of the Scarborough Community Council.

(vii) (January 26, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto stating that the East York Community Council on January 21, 1998, advised the Urban Environment and Development Committee that it endorses the position of the Council of The Corporation of the Borough of East York whereby the Borough Council authorized entering into an agreement with Bell Canada with respect to advertising on telephone booths and sharing revenue from such advertising until December 31, 1998, in accordance with Minute No. 3.468, 1997.

(viii) (January 27, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto advising that the Toronto Community Council on January 21, 1998:

(1) requested the Urban Environment and Development Committee to defer this matter to its subsequent meeting; and

(2) forwarded the former City of Toronto's position on this matter to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(ix) (February 2, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto advising that the York Community Council on January 21, 1998, having considered a communication (January 13, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding related correspondence regarding Bell Canada telephone booth advertising, recommended that the Urban Environment and Development Committee be requested:

(1) to defer consideration of this matter for one month to allow the Commissioner of Development Services (York Civic Centre) to report to the Community Council on any concerns with respect to safety, possible contravention of the Sign By-law, and the impact of such advertising on a City-wide basis; and

(2) to allow the members of the York Community Council to debate the issue, prior to making a deputation at the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

________

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Russ McCall, Bell Canada Payphone Services; and submitted a brief with regard thereto, an Executive Summary of the Payphone Booth Ad Panel Study prepared by Thompson Lightstone and Company Limited, and a photograph of a Bell Canada telephone booth with an illuminated advertising panel;

- Mr. Randall Franklin, Director, International Media Advertising;

- Mr. Ron Barr, Executive Director, Community/Government Relations, Gould Outdoor Advertising;

- Mr. Charles Crawford, ABC Residents Association;

- Mr. Donald Jennison, on behalf of Swansea Area Ratepayers;

- Ms. Joyce Saunders, Toronto;

- Ms. Diane Dyer, Toronto;

- Ms. Ingrid Brooks, OMNI Outdoor and Company Ltd. Partnership; and submitted a brief with regard thereto;

- Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Toronto; and

- Sergeant Richard Murdoch, Corporate Planning Division, Toronto Police Service.

(e) Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs

and Video Lottery Terminals.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) concurred with the recommendations embodied in the following report (February 6, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, subject to:

(a) amending section (a) of the Terms of Reference by striking out the date "March 23, 1998" and inserting in lieu thereof the date "April 20, 1998"; so that section (a) shall read as follows:

"(a) that the Sub-Committee on Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its April 20, 1998, meeting on the matters described in paragraph (d)(i), (ii), (iii);"; and

(b) amending section (e) of the Terms of Reference by:

(i) striking out the word "three"; and

(ii) adding thereto the following: "namely, Councillors Faubert, Li Preti, McConnell and Moeser"; so that section (e) shall read as follows:

"(e) that the Sub-Committee be co-chaired by Councillor Sgro and Councillor Moscoe and include additional Members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, namely, Councillors Faubert, Li Preti, McConnell and Moeser;";

(2) requested the City Solicitor to report to the Sub-Committee on Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals:

(a) on the implications of the British Columbia Supreme Court decision referred to in the fifth operative paragraph of the Motion by Councillor Bussin, seconded by Councillor Augimeri, viz:

". . . the recent British Columbia Supreme Court declaration that the Gaming Proceeds Distribution Regulations B.C. Reg. 362/97 is invalid and without force because the Province of British Columbia cannot receive, require or authorize 'for profit' gaming companies to receive, the proceeds of gaming that is managed and conducted by charitable and religious organizations, and to do so not only contradicts the British Columbia Lottery Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 278, but as well expressly contradicts s. 207(1)(b) of the Criminal Code; and

(b) providing a synopsis of all by-laws related to this matter;

(3) requested the Interim Functional Lead for Planning to submit a report to the Sub-Committee on Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals regarding the history and statistical data related to charity casinos that have existed in Toronto for a number of years; and

(4) requested the City Clerk to advise all Members of Council of meetings of the Sub-Committee on Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals:

(i) (February 6, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair, Urban Environment and Development Committee, recommending that the Urban Environment and Development Committee establish a Sub-Committee on Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals with the following Terms of Reference:

(a) that the Sub-Committee on Permanent Charity Gaming Clubs and Video Lottery Terminals report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its March 23, 1998, meeting on the matters described in paragraph (d) (i), (ii), (iii);

(b) that the Sub-Committee hold public meeting(s) as appropriate across the City to receive public input;

(c) that the Functional Lead for Planning, the City Solicitor and the City Clerk provide the necessary support;

(d) that staff provide reports to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, through the Sub-Committee, as to:

(i) the legal options available to Council;

(ii) the potential positive and negative impacts of permanent charity clubs and video lottery terminals; and

(iii) any other matter of relevance to the issue; and

(e) that the Sub-Committee be co-chaired by Councillor Sgro and Councillor Moscoe and include three additional members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(ii) (February 6, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto advising that City Council, on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it three Motions requesting, in part, that the Province of Ontario be advised that the City of Toronto is opposed to the establishment of permanent charity gaming clubs and video lottery terminals within the municipality; and stating that the foregoing Motions were referred to the Urban Environment and Development Services Committee for consideration.

(iii) (February 9, 1998) from Mr. Wayne Olson, on behalf of Residents Against Gambling Expansion (RAGE), advising that 65 percent to 75 percent of the population of the new City of Toronto voted "No" to charity casinos and video lottery terminals (VLTs); that many other organizations in the city also oppose the Province's major gambling expansion plan; and urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee, if it is not going to recommend decisively on February 9, 1998, that Toronto remain casino and VLT-free, to defer consideration of this item until adequate public notice can be given.

________

The following persons appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Paul Christie, Ontario Association of Charity Gaming Clubs Operators Association;

- Mr. Mark Savage, Charities First;

- Mr. Edmund A. Conway, Board Member, Variety Village;

- Mr. Rick Ashley, Muscular Dystrophy Association;

- Mr. Wayne Olson, Residents Against Gambling Expansion (RAGE);

- Mr. Gordon Baker, Toronto; and

- Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto.

(f) Proposed Installation of Bicycle Lanes on

Dundas Street East from Kingston Road to River Street,

and on River Street from Spruce Street to King Street.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communications to the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(i) (December 11, 1997) from the Metropolitan Clerk advising that the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee on December 10, 1997, requested the Metropolitan Clerk to forward to the City Clerk of the new City of Toronto, for submission to the appropriate committee of the new City Council which deals with cycling and pedestrian issues, the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the appropriate staff of the new City of Toronto be requested to investigate the feasibility of installing bicycle lanes on Dundas Street East, from Kingston Road to River Street, and on River Street, from Spruce Street to King Street, and other streetscape improvements, as identified in the communication dated September 29, 1997, from Mr. Bill Brown, Toronto, Ontario, appended hereto."

(ii) (February 6, 1998) from Ms. Lisa Tolentino, Board Member, Citizens for a Safe Environment, expressing support for the installation of bicycle lanes on Dundas Street East.

(iii) (February 8, 1998) from Mr. Doug Lee, Toronto, expressing support for the installation of bicycle lanes on Dundas Street East; suggesting that traffic-calming measures also be introduced on Dundas Street East; and that vehicle lanes be narrowed so that additional yard space could be given to residents along the street to aid in the beautification of Dundas Street East.

(iv) (February 9, 1998) from Mr. Ronald A. Kuipers, Toronto, expressing support for the installation of bicycle lanes on Dundas Street East.

(v) (February 9, 1998) from Mr. Jim McManamy, Toronto, expressing support for the installation of bicycle lanes on Dundas Street East; suggesting that the new City of Toronto incorporate a long-term plan for the bicycle as a serious form of transportation, exercise, pleasure and improvement of quality of life for all citizens; and that cycle and pedestrian pathways must be integrated into the total traffic and transportation plan for the City.

(vi) (February 8, 1998) from Mr. Terry Cassan, Toronto, expressing support for the installation of bicycle lanes on Dundas Street East to alleviate the unsafe and unhealthy conditions that exist on this street.

(vii) (February 10, 1998) from Trustee Lilein Schaeffer, Don River Ward, expressing support for the installation of bicycle lanes on Dundas Street East.

________

Mr. William E. Brown, Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(g) Establishment of a Road Allowance Sub-Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) concurred with the recommendation embodied in the following report from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation, viz:

"It is recommended that a Road Allowance Sub-Committee of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be established in accordance with the Terms of Reference outlined in this report.";

(2) appointed Councillors Moscoe, Silva and Jones to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee; and

(3) referred the following communication from Mr. Tony O'Donohue to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee for consideration:

(i) (January 26, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation recommending that a Road Allowance Sub-Committee of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be established in accordance with the Terms of Reference outlined in this report; advising that the basic role of the proposed Road Allowance Sub-Committee is to provide an opportunity and structure for detailed discussion of issues related to the use of the non-travelled portions of the City of Toronto roads rights-of-way by others; such issues to include transit shelters, newspaper boxes, sidewalk cafes, encroachments, boulevard parking, benches, street-related signs, vending, and any other matter that may be referred to the Sub-Committee by the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and stating that the formation of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee will facilitate the resolution of issues arising out of the need to harmonize various and different approaches by the former jurisdictions.

The Committee also had before it a communication (February 7, 1998) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue encouraging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to establish the Road Allowance Sub-Committee; and suggesting that the Sub-Committee examine the issue of street parking in the 'older' part of the downtown area.

(h) FCM Advisory to Port Cities Regarding Bill C-9

(Canada Marine Act).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communications:

(i) (December 22, 1997) from Mr. James W. Knight, Executive Director, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, responding to a letter from the Metropolitan Clerk dated October 16, 1997, regarding the Port of Toronto; advising that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) has been active in relation to the Canada Marine Act, Bill C-9, as well as its predecessor Bill C-44, in defending Metro's views that federal legislation should allow for a made-in-Toronto solution in reforming the Harbour Commission; stating that the FCM has made this case to the House of Commons Transport Committee and other MPs as well as to Transport Canada officials; and attaching, for information, a copy of FCM's recent advisories to port cities which outlines the Federation's concerns with the legislation.

(ii) (October 26, 1998) addressed to the Executive Director, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, from the Metropolitan Clerk advising that the Metropolitan Council at its meeting held on October 8 and 9, 1997, adopted, without amendment, a Motion moved by Councillor Chow, seconded by Councillor Layton, regarding the Port of Toronto area; such Motion containing the following operative paragraphs:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1) the port area remain in the control of the City of Toronto, and that the new City of Toronto be exempted from the provisions set out in any legislation with intent similar to that set out in the 'Canada Marine Act', as considered by the last Federal Parliament; and

(2) the Metropolitan Chairman and other interested Councillors join with the City of Toronto in its meeting with the Federal Liberal Members of Parliament in the Metropolitan Toronto Area."

(i) Appointment of Members of Council to the Noise Management

Committee of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA);

and Requirements for Citizen Appointee(s)

to the Board of Directors of the GTAA.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) recommended to the Striking Committee, and Council, that two Members of City Council be appointed to the Noise Management Committee of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority; and

(2) requested the City Clerk to advise citizens attending the Introduction Seminar with respect to appointments to the Board of Directors of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority that the Council appointee(s) will be required:

(a) to attend meetings of the Urban Environment and Development Committee when matters pertaining to the airport are being considered; and

(b) to report regularly to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on airport matters that would be of interest to the Committee; and

(3) received the following communications:

(i) (January 8, 1998) from Mr. Louis A. Turpen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), responding to a letter dated December 1, 1997, from the former Commissioner of Administrative Services for the City of Etobicoke which included petitions from Etobicoke residents regarding night-time operations at Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA); advising that these petitions arose from test night flights that were initiated by the GTAA to serve the steadily increasing demand for air travel to and from the Greater Toronto Area; stating that the GTAA presented preliminary results of the test operations at a joint public meeting on September 25, 1997, of LBPIA's two consultative committees; that there was considerable interest by residents at this meeting, and the GTAA intends to facilitate ongoing discussion by holding workshops in 1998, the first of which will be held on January 20, 1998; pointing out that the GTAA is committed to working with the local communities in a constructive and positive manner to identify and pursue solutions to operational impacts which strike a balance between airport development and community interests.

(ii) (December 1, 1997) addressed to the President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Toronto Airports Authority from the Commissioner of Administrative Services and Clerk/Treasurer, City of Etobicoke, forwarding a petition which was circulated to the Etobicoke community centres, local libraries and Etobicoke City Hall regarding noise from the Pearson International Airport, as directed by the Council of the City of Etobicoke's Resolution No. 394, passed September 22, 1997.

(iii) (February 4, 1998) from Councillor Dick O'Brien, Markland-Centennial, advising that the operations of Lester B. Pearson International Airport (LBPIA) have a profound effect on the residents of his ward which is geographically located to the south of the airport; expressing concern with the reasons given by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) for its decision to perform secret night flights during restricted hours, which were carried out with no prior notification to, or consultation with, the residential communities; submitting a letter from the Federal Minister of Transport indicating that he has no plans to approve permanent changes to the published noise abatement procedures or noise operating restrictions at LBPIA; and stating that City Council should advise the GTAA that a request for any such changes would not be supported.

(j) Toronto Transit Commission:

1998-2002 Capital Program Status.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) received the following communication; and

(2) directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to the Budget Committee for information:

(January 27, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) on January 27, 1998, considered report No. (9), entitled "1998-2002 Capital Program Status"; and setting out the action taken by the Commission with respect thereto.

(Councillor Balkissoon, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in Item (d), headed "Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising," embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he is on a leave of absence from Bell Canada.)

(Councillor Giansante, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in Item (d), headed "Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising," embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that his wife is an employee of Bell Canada.)

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, February 9, 1998

(Report No. 2 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.)